Pakistan Muslim League-N leader and legal advisor, Barrister Aqeel Malik, stated that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the President has the authority to transfer judges, including the power to appoint judges to the High Court. He emphasized that the President made the decision after consulting with the relevant Chief Justice, and that this action is constitutionally permissible.

Speaking on the TV program “Spotlight” with host Munizae Jahangir, Malik asserted that there are no reservations regarding the judges’ transfers and that no disparity among judges will arise. He highlighted that all provinces collectively constitute Pakistan, emphasizing the beauty of the federation. He further clarified that no province has superior rights over Islamabad and refuted claims that the government is arbitrarily appointing judges, stating that representation from all provinces in the Islamabad High Court is essential.

The decision, he said, was made after considering experience and other relevant factors, and that the notion of the government appointing favored judges is inaccurate. He added that no discrimination will occur in the Islamabad High Court and that all concerns are based on assumptions. He questioned whether any cases involving Imran Khan have been assigned to the newly appointed judge, pointing out the presence of three senior judges in the Islamabad High Court and stating that the selection of the next Chief Justice has not yet been made.

In contrast, PTI’s lawyer Faisal Chaudhry criticized the government’s decision as strange, highlighting the shortage of judges in Punjab and the transfer of a relatively junior judge (15th in seniority) to Islamabad. He expressed concern that this judge may potentially become the next Chief Justice.

Chaudhry’s objection centered on the process of transferring judges, alleging that the government is appointing favored judges, creating seniority issues in Islamabad, and ultimately undermining the justice system in Pakistan.

He further argued that the 26th Constitutional Amendment has led to an assault on the judiciary, and that the government’s controversial decisions will be unacceptable to both lawyers and the public.