Islamabad:
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has moved an application in the Supreme Court seeking early consultation with his constitutional petition against an IHC order that limits him from hearing cases. He has requested the point to hear the petition this week – between September 23 to September 26.
On September 16, a division bench of IHC, which consisted of Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, Justice Jahangiri stopped from performing his duties when it took a petition who accused the judge of having a dubious LLB degree
Interestingly, the bench also sought help from the lawyer for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan on the question of whether the petition was maintenance while appointing senior lawyer Barrister Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Ali Ausaf as Amici Curiae.
The bench noted that until the Supreme Court Council (SJC) – the responsibility forum, which has also been contacted against Justice Jahangiri – decides the case, the judge could not handle cases.
On September 19, five IHC judges went to SC personally to submit separate constitutional petitions, which made eleven different prayers, including one seeking the cancellation of the IHC order that prevents Justice Jahangiri from legal work.
In his application, which was submitted on September 22, Justice Jahangiri declared that it was a settled position in the law that a detention order could not be adopted to prevent a Supreme Court judge from performing his job.
He said the case related to important law issues regarding the acting judge of the Supreme Court and the independence of the judiciary, which was very worrying about any jurisdiction.
“On September 16th order opens the flooding gates to litigation where any pending referral or complaint or petition against any judge can allow a Supreme Court to prevent him from performing his function.
“Therefore, it is necessary that urgent intervention from this court is needed to correct course and prevent such actions from tightening the jacket cock for the High Court judges.” He said the order was adopted without considering the Bona Fide of the person, Mian Daud Advocate, who filed a petition against him.
In the absence of such Bona Fide, he said, the petition, which was filed against him, was not even maintainable. Therefore, this provision must be made at the beginning to close the door of any such Mala Fide -Law case initiated against constitutional salaried employees.
“The decisive decision to limit a judge from performing his function was taken without once hearing the counterposition. The petitioner was never heard.
“Therefore, it is imperative that the objections to the maintenance of the petition filed against the petitioner are considered at the beginning of the very beginning to prevent the trial from unnecessarily excluding the petitioner from dispensing for justice in the high court which he earns.”
The judge said he could only serve as a judge for High Court until a certain age, and it lost time due to the operation of the intended order could not be recovered by him.
