IHC full court approves Practice and Procedure rules with majority vote

F.P. Report

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday approved the Practice and Procedure and Establishment Rules by majority vote in the full court meeting.

The full court approved the rules with a 6-5 majority votes, without any debate.

Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Azam Khan, Justice Muhammad Asif, and Justice Inam Amin Minhas voted in favour of the approval.

In contrast, Justice Mohsin Akhtar, Tariq Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz opposed the approval.

A demand for amendments to the full court meeting agenda, made in letters by two judges, was also rejected.

Sources revealed that a request by one judge to postpone the full court meeting was also dismissed.

Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar rejected the judges’ request to postpone the rules’ approval.

The agenda item concerning the powers of Family Court judges was unanimously approved.

The first agenda item related to Family Court judges’ powers, while the second agenda concerning issues with the Islamabad High Court building was also approved with consensus.

According to sources, the approval was granted to forward the Islamabad High Court building issues to the federal government for further consideration.

The full court meeting lasted approximately 35 minutes, the sources said.

Earlier, Justice Babar Sattar and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan circulated a letter sharply criticising Chief Justice Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, accusing him of undermining judicial independence and turning the court’s administration into a “monocracy.”

The letter was shared ahead of a full court meeting convened to mark the start of the new judicial year.

In his letter, judges welcomed the meeting as “long overdue” but argued that it must confront “the illegalities that have seeped into the administration of Islamabad High Court.”

They accused Justice Dogar of sidelining senior judges, misusing administrative powers, and eroding the court’s role as a guardian of fundamental rights.