IHC Rejects Plea Against Justice Saman Imtiaz Appointment

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, ruling that the matter was not admissible for regular hearing. The decision came in a fresh legal development that placed judicial independence, institutional dignity and the limits of courtroom challenges back in the national spotlight.

According to the report, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir issued a two-page order while dealing with objections raised by the IHC Registrar Office. The court held that the petition did not meet the required legal threshold and described the application as an attempt that could undermine the judiciary rather than raise a maintainable constitutional question.

The case was filed by Advocate Kalsoom Khaliq, who had questioned the appointment of Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz. The Registrar Office had already objected to the plea, and the matter came before the court for determination of whether it could proceed further.

In the written order, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir noted that allegations made against a judge must be approached with seriousness, responsibility and legal care. The court observed that baseless and unverified accusations against a member of the judiciary could fall within a contempt-related framework if they damage the dignity of the institution.

The order also underlined that grievances against judicial decisions cannot be converted into broad attacks on judges. It pointed out that litigants have recognised legal forums for challenging court orders, while questions about alleged misconduct by a judge fall within the domain of the Supreme Judicial Council.

The ruling is significant because it clarifies the line between lawful criticism, appellate remedies and personal allegations against judges. In Pakistan’s current legal climate, where judicial transfers, appointments and internal court matters have frequently become subjects of public debate, the order reinforces the role of institutional channels rather than open-ended petitions.

Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz had recently been transferred to the Sindh High Court, a development that had already attracted attention in legal and political circles. Her name has remained linked with wider discussions about judicial administration, court autonomy and the framework through which judges are appointed or moved between courts.

The broader impact of the decision may be felt beyond this single petition. Lawyers, petitioners and public commentators are likely to read the order as a warning that allegations against judges must be backed by verifiable material and pursued through the correct forum, not through proceedings that risk weakening judicial independence.

The next step will depend on whether the petitioner chooses to approach any higher legal forum or a constitutionally recognised body. For now, the Islamabad High Court’s ruling closes the immediate challenge and signals that courts will closely scrutinise petitions that target judges without a clear legal basis.