Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir Recusal: IHC Case Explained

The Arbab Muhammad Tahir recusal has put judicial ethics in the spotlight at the Islamabad High Court. On Friday, 9 October 2026, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir stepped away from hearing a petition challenging the repatriation of section officers appointed on deputation — after revealing in open court that the petitioners had allegedly tried to approach him through telephone calls. His blunt remarks about the attempt have drawn wide attention to how litigants are expected to conduct themselves before the courts.

Arbab Muhammad Tahir: What Happened in Court

During the hearing, Justice Tahir told the petitioners’ side that attempts had been made to contact him by phone and through recommendations. Expressing strong displeasure, he remarked: “You seek recommendations and have people call me. This is not how things work. It is wrong and inappropriate.” He stressed that while the petitioners’ legal claims could be considered on their merits, any attempt to influence a judge privately was unacceptable.

The judge then formally recused himself from the proceedings and directed that the case file be sent to the office of the IHC chief justice for reassignment to another bench.

The Deputation Case Behind the Recusal

The underlying petition concerns section officers serving in Islamabad on deputation who were originally appointed as teachers. They are challenging a decision directing their repatriation to their respective provinces, along with the relevant notification. Their counsel, Raja Aleem Khan Abbasi, informed the court that the officers were seeking regularisation of their services and absorption into the Office Management Group (OMG) so they could remain in their current posts.

Deputation — the temporary posting of a civil servant to a department other than their parent service — and repatriation back to the parent department are routine features of Pakistan’s civil service. Disputes over repatriation orders reach the courts regularly, and this case, on its legal merits, was one such routine service matter before the recusal intervened.

Why Judges Recuse Themselves

Recusal is the standard judicial response whenever a judge believes their impartiality could reasonably be questioned — whether because of a personal connection to a party, prior involvement in a matter, or, as here, an attempt by a litigant to make private contact. By stepping aside and sending the file to the chief justice’s office, Justice Tahir followed the normal procedure for protecting the integrity of the proceedings. Legal observers note that such public disclosures, while uncommon, serve a wider purpose: they signal to all litigants that back-channel approaches will not be tolerated and will be exposed rather than entertained. The petitioners named in the case include Khalid Mahmood, Muhammad Arif, Dilshad Ahmed, Saeed Chaudhry, Dr Muhammad Ismail and Najeebullah.

Justice Tahir is no stranger to high-profile matters at the IHC. He was among the judges who have handled sensitive cases ranging from missing-persons petitions to challenges involving law-enforcement conduct, and his courtroom remarks have frequently made headlines.

What Happens Next

The case file now rests with the IHC chief justice’s office, which will assign it to another bench. The core legal questions — whether the repatriation notification was lawful and whether the officers can be regularised or absorbed into the OMG — remain undecided and will be argued afresh before the new bench. The alleged contact attempts themselves could separately attract the court’s attention, as influencing a judge is a serious matter under the law.

The episode is a reminder of a basic rule of litigation: cases are won with arguments in open court, not with phone calls outside it. For more on the judiciary, see our report on Farooq Naek’s resignation from the judicial commission and follow our Pakistan News section for court developments.

The recusal was first reported by Ghanamma, citing Nation.com.pk.