ORDER SHEET.

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
W.P No.2667-2024

Noor Fatima and others

Vs.
Federation of Pakistan and others.
S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of
order/ order/ parties or counsel where necessary.
proceedings proceedings
(17) 07.04.2025 M/s Hafiz Asif Ali Tamboli, Imaan Zainab
Hazir, Hadi Ali Chatha, Muhammad Usman
Nawaz, Advocates for the petitioners.
M/s Rao Abdul Raheem, Qazi Adil Aziz, Asad
Abbas Raja, Taimoor Waheed Malik, Zafar
Muhammad Khokhar, Malik Mazhar Javed,
Shaista Chaudhry, Sajjad Akbar Abbasi,
Advocates for the relevant respondents.
Mr. Ans Mashood and Ms. Nida Aly,
Advocates for NCHR.
Ms. Kanz us Sadaat Siddiqui, DAG.
Pirzada Abubakar, Section Officer (Cabinet
Division).

The instant case has been assigned to this

Division Bench by the Hon’ble Acting Chief

Justice on the basis of a note initiated by the

office, pursuant to request made by one of the

Hon’ble Benches of this Court, that Blasphemy

cases as well as certain tax cases, should not be

fixed before his lordship. The note reflects that

many blasphemy cases are pending before both

Single Benches and Division Benches of this

Court. A list of blasphemy case was prepared by

the office, and subsequently, the Hon’ble Acting

Chief Justice transferred all these cases to

Division Bench-II of this Court, for the reason

that most of the blasphemy cases are pending

before Division Bench-II.

 2
W.P No.2667-2024

2. We have gone through the entire note

sheet, however, no such list has been

incorporated therein, which confirms that any

case relating to blasphemy is pending before this

Division Bench. Even otherwise, the instant case

(Noor Fatima and others Vs. Federation of

Pakistan) was specifically assigned to Hon’ble

Single Bench-V of this Court, and the said

Bench has heard the matter at length on 16

dates of hearings, which reflects that substantial

proceedings have been conducted in this case.

Similarly, criminal appeal against acquittal

bearing No.89/2013 (Sheikh Usman Rasheed

vs. Dr. Iftikhar Hameed Sheikh), referred in

the note sheet was pending before the Hon’ble

Judge requested for its non-fixation before him

has not yet been decided by the said Single

Bench. The Office has also placed Crl. Misc.

No. 363-B-2025 (Yasir Hanif vs. The State

and another) before us as a reference, which is

a post-arrest bail, pending before Single Bench

No.VI of this Court. The said matter was also

transmitted to this Division Bench under the

same order of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice.

3. The Office has further placed W.P.

No.1036/2018 (Muhammad Zahid Saeed

Khan Bhutta, Advocate, High Court,

Islamabad Vs. Federation of Pakistan, etc.)

before this Bench, which was admitted by the

then Judge of this Court in relation to

 3
W.P No.2667-2024

declarations concerning the sentences awarded

under Sections 295-C and 295-B PPC. Though

the cases involve the offences relating to

blasphemy, but the cases referred above and the

case in hand do not rise from a single set of

accused or from a single transaction of

blasphemy, nor they are connected to each

other. Even otherwise, there is no specific

provision or reference in the order of the Hon’ble

Acting Chief Justice with reference to the High

Court Rules and Orders, which authorizes his

lordship to transfer the cases pending before a

Single Bench of this Court to a Division Bench.

The matter of similar nature has also been

discussed at length by a three member bench of

this Court in reported judgment i.e. W.P

No.3061-2021 (Muhammad Sajid Vs. Imran

Ahmed Khan Niazi and another), whereby the

Bench showed its consensus that the Chief

Justice of High Court has the powers to

constitute Benches, but subsequently cannot

reconstitute or alter the Benches once

constituted unless Bench itself refers the matter

to the Chief Justice with its reasoning of such

recusal or reconstitution.

4. In this regard, we have gone through

Volume-V of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore

High Court, particularly Chapter-3, which

regulates the practice of the High Court in the

hearing of cases and other matters. There is no

 4
W.P No.2667-2024

specific provision, which empowers the Hon’ble

Chief Justice to assign or reassign cases or to

withdraw cases from a Single Bench, either to

another Single Bench or to a Division Bench.

Though rule 2 of the Part A of Chapter 3

empowers the Hon’ble Chief Justice to approve

the roster, prepared by the Deputy Registrar,

whether Singly or in Benches of two or more, but

assignment of cases to the Single or Division

Benches has solely been vested in the Deputy

Registrar in terms of rules 3 & 4 of the Chapter

ibid. In order to understand the administrative

power of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, we have gone

through the relevant Chapter i.e. Chapter 10,

Part A of Volume V of the High Court Rules and

Orders, which provides that administrative

business of the High Court shall be controlled by

the Administration Committee. Even otherwise,

assignment of cases is purely a judicial business

and cannot be equalized to administration

business. Perusal of Part-A (a) 1 of Chapter-1

(Judicial Business) and Part-A of Chapter-3 of

the rules makes it crystal clear that vast powers

have been given to the Deputy Registrar to

perform judicial business of the High Court in

terms of marking/fixing cases. It is important to

note that no power has been given in the rules to

withdraw or transmit any case from any Bench

even to the Deputy Registrar.

 5
W.P No.2667-2024

5. This Court has also been informed about a

recent order passed by Bench-IV of this Court in

W.P. No.937-2025 (Muhammad Nadeem vs.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary

Establishment Division, Islamabad &

another), in which learned Single Judge

discussed the powers available to the Chief

Justice while dealing with cases of recusal or

transfer. The said order is clearly in line with the

principles set out in the High Court Rules and

Orders. The instant petition (W.P. No.2667-

2024) being heard at length by learned Bench-V,

was not appropriate or justifiable to be

withdrawn from that Court and transferred to

this Division Bench, unless a justification is

provided under the law or there exists a

reference (i.e., connected/interrelated matters

pending before this Division Bench), which is

not the case in hand. When a Bench seizes a

matter and hears the arguments at substantial

length and then adjourned the same, such

matters cannot be transferred to another Bench

unless otherwise directed by the Bench seized of

the matter.

6. While considering this unique proposition

before this Court, we have been guided by the

principle settled in PLD 2001 SC 568 (Asif Ali

Zardari Vs. The State), where it was held that

a Judge of the Superior Court is the keeper of

his own conscience, and it is for him to decide

 6
W.P No.2667-2024

whether or not to hear a matter before him.

Even, otherwise, it is not a case of bias that

could be made a reason for transfer, nor has the

Hon’ble Judge recused himself in the instant

case. Although the list provided by the office of

Court No.VI to the Registrar's office shows that

the Hon’ble Court has recused itself from three

cases, which required transmission to any other

Single Bench of the Court. It has also been held

in PLD 1966 SC 140 (M.H. Khondkar Vs. The

State) that any application for the transfer of

cases does not lie against a Judge of the High

Court. Therefore, the transfer of a case from one

Bench to another is a matter left at the

discretion of the Judge who is dealing with the

case. This aspect has also been highlighted in

2023 PCr.LJ 350 (Muhammad Azam Khan

Swati Vs. The State). In the light of these case

laws, the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice has not

properly been assisted on the administrative

side by the office, which has created this

awkward situation and put this Court in an

embarrassing situation. Therefore, to avoid any

such untoward situation in the future, it is

necessary to take guidance from the parameters

highlighted in the Civil Procedure Code, as well

as the High Court Rules and Orders.

7. Ordinarily, the concept of a civil case is

regulated under Section 24 of the Civil

Procedure Code, 1908, which refers the general

 7
W.P No.2667-2024

principles of transfer and withdrawal. However,

these powers are confined to transfer or

withdraw the case from Subordinate Courts, and

the said provision is not applicable to the High

Court, as a Single Bench of the High Court is

not subordinate to the Chief Justice of that

Court. This aspect has been explained in

Chapter 13 of the High Court Rules and Orders,

Volume I, which is silent regarding any such

powers vested in the Chief Justice. Therefore,

this matter must be considered in the light of

other provisions of the High Court Rules and

Orders relating to judicial business. Chapter-1

part G Volume-V specifically deals with the

establishment of Benches and they provide that

the Chief Justice may transfer any proceedings

pending at the Principal Seat of the Lahore High

Court or at a Bench to another Bench or to the

Principal Seat, as deemed expedient. The Chief

Justice may also determine the cases or classes

of cases to be disposed of at the Principal Seat or

at a Bench. However, such powers could not be

exercised in these matters, especially in

Islamabad High Court, which has no other

Bench anywhere in Pakistan. Chapter 10, Part-A

of the Volume-V contain a provision that it is

exclusive concern of the Chief Justice that he

may constitute the Benches, but said Chapter

does not provide any further power to assign,

reassign, withdraw or transfer of case from one

 8
W.P No.2667-2024

Bench to another Bench. As such Chapter

dealing with assignment of cases is Chapter-3

Part A Volume-V, which only provides specific

powers to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to assign

the cases to the Single Bench or the Division

Bench according to roster approved by the

Hon’ble Chief Justice as such if a Judge recuses

to hear a case or the case is required to be heard

along with connected/interrelated or identical

cases, then the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) shall

assign the case to some other Bench while

considering the following factors:

i. The cause of action in both cases.

ii. The subject matter of both or all
the cases, such as petitions or
appeals, in respect of the property,
law, or commonality of the parties.
iii. The dominant cause.
iv. A matter that was earlier taken up
by a Court with substantial
proceedings.
v. In cases where no substantial
proceedings were carried out
before two or Benches, the case
should be listed in the order of
sequence as notified by the office
at the time of assigning the case
number.
vi. Reference of any connected matter
if given in any Court’s Order or by
the counsel of the parties.

8. The aforementioned factors are required to

be considered and conveyed by the Deputy

Registrar (Judicial) in writing in the official

noting, with justified reasons, for the purpose of

marking/assigning any case. In this regard, if

the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) concludes that a

particular case is related to another case

pending before a different Bench who has taken

 9
W.P No.2667-2024

cognizance therefore, he must consult with the

PS/Reader of the Court to avoid any untoward

situation as has been created in the case in

hand. Although this aspect is not provided in the

High Court Rules and Orders. It is necessary to

maintain harmony among the different Benches

of this Court and with the Hon’ble Chief Justice

of the High Court. Therefore, it is essential for

the Deputy Registrar (Jud.) to place the case

before the Senior Judge of the Division Bench or

the Larger Bench, who is hearing the matter in

order of seniority for his knowledge to avoid any

untoward situation among the Judges.

9. The Deputy Registrar (Jud.) of this Court

shall not exercise the powers to transfer a case

from the Single Bench to the Division Bench

unless there is a commonality or joinder of the

cause of action, or a question of interpretation of

law, justifies such an order. It is also important

to note that the Deputy Registrar has no power

to transfer any case from any Bench unless the

Bench itself asks to do so after recusal or

otherwise with reason in judicial order. Even

otherwise, in case the Benches specifically

constituted such as green Bench, Banking

Judge to hear specific cases could not be

changed nor the cases shall be transferred from

the previous Bench to newly constituted Bench

unless the Judge dealing with those cases allows

to do so, after his recusal.

 10
W.P No.2667-2024

10. We have gone through Part-B of Chapter-3

Volume-V of the High Court Rules and Orders,

which deals with the jurisdiction of a Single

Bench and Benches of the Court. This reflects

the domain of the Division Bench in an explicit

manner, including but not limited to Regular

First Appeals from the decree of a subordinate

Court, the jurisdictional value of which exceeds

that of the District Court as prescribed by the

Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and Sub-rule (ii) of

rule 2 also applies where a sentence of death

has been passed or in cases where a notice has

been issued to a person sentenced to

imprisonment or imprisonment for life, requiring

him to show cause as to why the sentence

should not be altered to death, or in any appeal

as categorized in sub-clause C of Part-II of

Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this context, Rule-4A is the only exception, as

it deals with the powers of the Chief Justice to

refer any matter to a Division Bench of two

Judges with the permission of the Single Bench,

if he (the Single Bench) deems it appropriate to

refer the matter. Therefore, if any matter is

pending before the Single Bench, it cannot be

transferred or referred to the Division Bench

unless the Judge hearing the matter thinks fit to

transfer.

11. In case of any ambiguity, the Deputy

Registrar (Judicial) shall seek guidance in terms

 11
W.P No.2667-2024

of Chapter-10, Part-A of Volume-V of the High

Court Rules and Orders, especially with

reference to Rule 5, Sub-rule (i), (ii), and (iii),

which cover all matters involving questions of

principle and policy, all cases related to

amendments to existing laws or statutory rules

of the Court, and all matters concerning the

High Court or its Judges.

12. Therefore, in future, these guidelines are

required to be considered as a reference when

transferring/marking cases by the Deputy

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, unless the Full

Court provides a view to further settle the High

Court Rules and Orders to address such

situations, which is the best and proper forum.

13. In the light of these observations, all these

cases are transmitted to the Deputy Registrar

(Judicial) to assign the cases keeping in view the

guidelines settled hereinabove as well as while

considering the mandate of the High Court Rules

and Orders and following the recent order

passed in W.P. No. 937-2025. It is expected that

all cases will be listed before the relevant Courts

as early as possible, keeping in view the urgency

of the matters.

(SARDAR EJAZ ISHAQ KHAN) (MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI)

JUDGE JUDGE

RAMZAN