ISLAMABAD: A larger bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday reaffirmed that the chief justice is the sole “master of the roster” and recalled a July 2025 order issued by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan in the Aafia Siddiqui case, ruling that the forum that passed the order was not lawfully constituted.
In July last year, Justice Khan issued contempt notices to the prime minister and the entire federal cabinet for failing to comply with court directions in a petition filed by Dr Fowzia Siddiqui, who had sought the release of her sister, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, from a US prison.
However, the registrar’s office did not implement the notices because the chief justice had not assigned Justice Khan any bench duties in the approved roster for that day. The official summer vacation schedule had also listed him as being on leave. The registrar later recommended that a larger bench examine the legality of the July 21 hearing.
On Monday, a larger bench comprising Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, Khadim Hussain Soomro and Muhammad Azam Khan took up the matter. Justice Minhas authored the detailed judgement.
The bench held that no bench can exercise jurisdiction unless the chief justice constitutes it through a duly approved roster. It noted that although Justice Khan held court on July 21, 2025, heard cases and issued directions — including initiating contempt proceedings against federal government members — the approved weekly roster had not authorised him to do so.
Citing the High Court Rules and Orders, the bench declared that only the chief justice has the authority to constitute benches. While the deputy registrar (judicial) may prepare a draft roster, the roster acquires legal force only after the chief justice approves it. The court ruled that no judge or committee can independently form a bench or assign judicial work.
The larger bench framed three key questions: whether a bench comes into legal existence simply because judges are present in court or only after the chief justice approves the roster; whether a judge can self-assign or assume jurisdiction; and whether the chief justice must obtain consent from a bench before consolidating similar petitions.
Referring to Articles 175(2) and 202 of the Constitution, the bench held that courts can exercise jurisdiction only as conferred by law. It clarified that jurisdiction does not attach to a judge personally but flows from the lawful constitution of a bench. Judges’ physical presence in a courtroom does not create a bench in the eyes of the law; a bench comes into juridical existence only when the chief justice constitutes it through an approved roster or specific order.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that judges cannot self-constitute benches, select cases on their own, or continue proceedings without lawful assignment. It warned that allowing judges to assume jurisdiction outside the approved roster would undermine institutional discipline and contradict the constitutional framework.
The court ruled that a judge cannot take up or retain a case without lawful assignment through the roster. Any such action amounts to exercising jurisdiction without legal authority and renders resulting orders void.
Addressing the consolidation of petitions, the bench held that the chief justice does not need the consent of individual benches to withdraw or consolidate identical or substantially similar cases. It described consolidation as an institutional mechanism to prevent conflicting judgements and maintain consistency in jurisprudence.
Concluding its findings, the larger bench ruled that the proceedings conducted on July 21, 2025, in the Aafia Siddiqui case took place before a forum that was not lawfully constituted under the approved roster. The court therefore declared the July 21 order to be without jurisdiction and recalled it.
The judgement stressed that adherence to the roster system is a constitutional requirement and not merely an administrative formality, underscoring its importance in upholding the rule of law and ensuring the orderly administration of justice.