Islamabad:
The Supreme Court on Monday suspended an Islamabad High Court (IHC) that had excluded IHC judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing court work. IHC subsequently issued a new causal list that restored Jahangiri to single and division benches.
A division bench led by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar on September 16 had stopped Justice Jahangiri in performing his duties as it began the procedure of a quo warranto -arriving that accused him of having a questionable LLB degree.
On September 19, five IHC judges, including Justice Jahangiri, went to the Supreme Court personally to submit separate constitutional petitions, making eleven different prayers, including one seeking the cancellation of the IHC order that prevents Jahangiri from court work.
On September 25, however, the University of Karachi canceled the judge’s LLB degree in the light of a previous decision made by its syndicate, which further complicated the situation.
Monday is a constitutional bench (CB) of SC – before by Justice Aminuddin Khan and consisting of Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan – the IHC order.
However, despite having secured preliminary relief from the Supreme Court, justice Jahangiri can still face a bumpy road until the controversy around his legal degree is resolved.
CB is likely to decide today (Tuesday) whether a Supreme Court can limit one of its judges from judicial work through a court decision. There is little chance of CB supporting the IHC order that limits Justice Jahangiri from performing legal functions.
However, the attitude of the Legal Attorney for Pakistan (AGP) will be crucial in this case. CB usually assigns considerable emphasis to AGP’s opinion, especially after the adoption of the 26th constitutional amendment.
Senior lawyers expect different possible results from the bench.
After allocating the temporary order, CB may be able to refer the case back to IHC for the first crucial maintenance of the quo warranto arrangement filed against Justice Jahangiri.
CB can also maintain that the complaint against the IHC judge is already awaiting the highest Judicial Council (SJC), which is scheduled to convene October 18.
Alternatively, it can be advised to decide that the quo -warranto writing is against the IHC judge itself. In this case, all lawsuits pending in IHC and SINDH High Court can be called in for final judgment of the point.
Some senior lawyers believe that the presence of five IHC judges – Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz – in the courtroom in this case is very alarming to the judge. Now all eyes are at the Supreme Court to see how it protects the independence of the judiciary.
Barrister Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar noted that Monday’s hearing was not about Justice Jahangiri, but about the role of the Supreme Court in the protection of the court’s independence.
“The appropriate forum to continue against a judge in an overall court has been and will always be, SJC. The unprecedented process adopted by Justice Dogar constitutes to use SJC’s forces and opens the door to future cleansing.
Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar lawyer praised CB’s preliminary order and called it expected and necessary, as restricting a sitting judge from legal functions had no constitutional or legal basis.
“The suspension reflects the role of the Supreme Court in the protection of legal addiction and sends a clear signal that such measures cannot be maintained in the law.”
Khokhar emphasized that the only competent forum to investigate a judge in Superior Court’s behavior or continuation is SJC under Article 209, not a division bench or full bench before the same court. This principle ensures that the court’s accountability remains within its proper constitutional framework.
He said that while administrative control can regulate the distribution of cases, it is not an administrative law, but a constitutional intervention that falls exclusively within SJC’s.
Despite its best intentions, the division bench acted at IHC and therefore acted beyond its legal authority. Supreme Court’s suspension of this order restores the right balance between constitutional forums.
Khokhar also noted that the Supreme Court, by issuing messages together with the suspension, has established a much needed precedent: The judges before the same court should not in the future adopt injunction or retention orders against each other.
This, he emphasized, is crucial to the institutional stature, credibility and discipline of the judiciary. Such questions must be solved either administratively or through the constitutionally mandated mechanism of SJC, not through intra-cost restriction measures.
