ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has sought explanations from two Supreme Court judges over complaints of alleged misconduct filed against them.
It is learned that the SJC, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, has formally asked both judges to respond to the allegations. One of the judges is currently serving at the Sindh High Court (SHC) while the other is serving at the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
One of the judges has been asked to explain why she accompanied sacked IHC judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri during his appearance in the SHC.
In September 2025, a complaint was filed against her in the SJC. The complainant alleged that Jahangiri had gone to Karachi to hear a fake degree case and that the respondent judge canceled the list of cases on her bench from September 24 to 26 and appeared along with Judge Jahangiri in the SHC.
The complainant further stated that the respondent judge removed cases without any personal or official justification, adding that one judge cannot appear in cases before another judge.
It was also alleged that the respondent judge tried to influence the SHC bench and violated her oath and the code of judicial conduct.
The SJC has also asked another judge for an explanation on allegations of not giving a proper hearing in a “sensitive case”. It is learned that the council recently decided to seek explanations from both judges and has now formally started the process.
Interestingly, both judges were signatories to the much-publicized “famous letter” to the SJC seeking guidance on alleged executive interference in judicial functions.
In March 2024, six IHC judges wrote an open letter to the SJC alleging intimidation and “brazen interference” in judicial affairs by an intelligence agency in politically important cases.
The case remains pending due to ongoing suo motu proceedings.
Senior lawyers believe the SJC’s history suggests it has often been more active with judges who are not considered to be in the good books of the executive branch.
On Thursday, the SJC also dealt with complaints of wrongdoing against its own members. However, the council’s statement did not clearly specify the outcome or fate of these complaints.
Notably, prior to his removal, former IHC judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri had filed a malpractice complaint against current IHC chief justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, who is also a member of the council.
Jahangiri had alleged that CJ Dogar was under “tremendous pressure” for a speedy disposal of a quo warranto petition against him.
According to the complaint, Justice Dogar allegedly suggested, both directly and indirectly, that if Jahangiri filed a post-dated resignation and surrendered it for safekeeping, it would help ease external pressure and allow the case to be closed.
In his complaint, Jahangiri further claimed that the Chief Justice had not been “truthful”.
He argued that an order announced in open court on 16 September 2025 was “diametrically opposed and completely inconsistent” with a subsequent chamber order.
The second order, he claimed, was issued in a “dual manner”.
The fate of this appeal against the IHC chief justice remains unclear.
