Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. Photo: IHC
ISLAMABAD:
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has accused Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar of Islamabad of misconduct, saying he was under “tremendous pressure” for speedy disposal of the quo warranto petition against him.
Justice Jahangiri had moved an application in the Islamabad High Court through advocate Akram Sheikh seeking to refer the case against his disqualification to the full bench of all judges except the transferred judges, including CJ Dogar.
“While the case remained sub judice before the Honorable Chief Justice, among other things, he discussed the pending case with the applicant. The Honorable Chief Justice admitted during such discussions that tremendous pressure had been placed on him to expeditiously dispose of the case against the applicant,” the writ states.
It is also revealed that CJ Dogar directly and indirectly suggested that if the applicant (Justice Jahangiri) offered post-dated dismissal and handed over the same to the Chief Justice for safekeeping, it would enable the Chief Justice to satiate those who were putting pressure on the Chief Justice and enable him to adjourn the trial.
“[The] the chief judge, by attempting to negotiate the outcome of a lower court case and making such an outcome conditional on the applicant’s resignation, has disqualified himself from sitting as a judge in the present case. The honorable chief justice must therefore recuse himself from hearing the case,’ the application states.
It is argued that such conduct by the Chief Justice is a clear violation of the Code which precludes any judge from discussing a lower court case with any party to the case. The chief justice, as a result of the pressure exerted on him, instead of complying with the code, chose to pressure his fellow judge to resign, it added.
Likewise, Justice Jahangiri also filed a complaint of misconduct against the IHC CJ in the Supreme Judicial Council. The judge also requested CJ Dogar’s dismissal on this ground.
Justice Jahangiri, presenting the plea of misconduct against the IHC CJ, contended that he has not been truthful “as the order pronounced in the court on 16.09.2025 was diametrically opposite and totally inconsistent with the one issued from the chamber in a dual manner, despite the fact that the matter will be decided in the first instance and will be decided in an open trial. is kept pending till the Supreme Court judicial council’s decision.”
Similarly, despite the Sindh High Court order dated 03.10.2025 clearly stating that the declaration of the University of Karachi is suspended, the Chief Justice erroneously declared on 02.12.2025 that the interim order is only limited to further proceedings by the University.
Likewise, it is further stated that the chief justice improperly marked the appearance of the complainant’s lawyer on 2 December, where he remained unrepresented, as no notice had been issued to him before 9 December. “Contrary to Article III of the Code, the conduct of the Chief Justice has not been free from impropriety and the appearance of partiality in the conduct.”
“He has not declined to act in a matter involving his own interest” and where his opinion is influenced by personal advantage. The Chief Justice has an interest in punishing the Complainant for challenging his transfer, seniority, appointment as Chief Justice and his subsequent actions as IHC Chief Justice, especially since if the Complainant’s challenge to the Chief Justice’s seniority is successful, the Complainant will be the Chief Justice’s superior.”
The complaint alleges that Justice Dogar has used the influence of his position as Chief Justice to decide the case for himself in order to gain an unjustified advantage against a judge who has dared to challenge his transfer and appointment: to ensure that he can manipulate the procedure and the outcome of the quo warranto petition.
He has further abused his position in deciding the case before a Division Bench without any basis to deviate from the norm of such petitions being heard by Single Benches to deny the complainant one appellate forum within the IHC.
It is also stated that the Chief Justice failed to maintain the harmony within his court and the “integrity of the judicial institution” due to his own conduct. The passing of the order dated 16.09.2025, which prevents the complainant from performing his judicial functions and even entertain such petitions against colleagues, seriously undermines the harmony within the IHC. This is contrary to the convention that judges exercise equal judicial power and must maintain civility among themselves in the performance of their duties.
The complaint further argued that Article 189 of the Constitution makes decisions and orders of the Supreme Court binding on all lower courts, including the IHC, and the Code requires judges to act in accordance with the Constitution, but the Chief Justice acted in violation of the Constitution.
“Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has stated in its order of 30.09.2025 that the objection/maintenance must first be decided, he proceeded to call for the registration of the complainant’s degree, which relates to the merits of the case, before deciding on the objection at a later date.”
It is argued that by discussing a sub judice matter with the applicant and admitting that he is under pressure too quickly to: adjudicate the case against the applicant; and negotiating the outcome of a lawsuit and making it conditional on the applicant’s resignation has clearly violated Articles IV and XV of the Code.
“The conduct of the respondent Chief Justice constitutes misconduct. The respondent Chief Justice has, through his conduct, eroded public confidence in the judiciary and refused to withdraw from a case in which he has a clear conflict of interest, despite the same having been repeatedly pointed out.
“The respondent Chief Justice has exercised his judicial power in a manifestly biased manner and in violation of the Code,” the subordinate superior told the IHC Chief Justice.
An IHC division headed by Justice Dogar has directed Justice Jahangiri’s applications for hearing today (Thursday).
Justice Jahangiri also challenged the IHC’s interim order declaring the quo warranto petition regarding his removal maintainable.
The judge has hired three lawyers – Akram Sheikh, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed and Uzair Bhandari.
Furthermore, Justice Jahangiri moved the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday seeking the quashing of an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order declaring a plea challenging the legitimacy of his law degree to be maintainable.
He also sought dismissal of the plea, which also questions the appointment of the IHC judge, “as being non-maintainable”.
