Division bench compromises CJ Dogar, Justice Azam rules that Justice Jahangiri’s appointment is illegal
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. Photo: IHC
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday officially debarred Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri on issues related to his law degree.
A division bench, headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, ruled that Justice Jahangiri did not hold a valid degree at the time of his appointment and declared his appointment “illegal.”
The bench ordered him to vacate his office immediately and directed the law ministry to formally remove him from the judiciary. “He had an invalid law degree at the time of his appointment and confirmation as a judge,” the court noted.
The IHC also disposed of all the various petitions in connection with the case. Judge Jahangiri had left the court about half an hour before the verdict was announced.
The controversy over Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s law education began last year when a letter, purportedly from the University of Karachi’s Controller of Examinations, started circulating on social media. In July, a complaint regarding his alleged fake exam was filed with the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the top judicial accountability forum that investigates allegations of misconduct against judges.
Read: Justice Jahangiri charges IHC CJ Dogar with misconduct
Even yesterday, Justice Jahangiri in his petition alleged that the IHC order was passed “without giving him an opportunity to be heard, while persons who were not parties to the suit were heard on the issue of maintenance.” He argued that this violated his fundamental right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution.
The petition states that the writ before the Islamabad High Court challenges his appointment as a judge on the basis of an alleged “invalid LLB degree”, an issue which, according to Justice Jahangiri, involves “disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by a High Court without recording evidence.” He maintained that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of a trial court and that “the high court lacks authority to admit evidence in quo warranto proceedings.”
The petition further notes that the IHC, while declaring the writ petition maintainable, relied on a report submitted by the University of Karachi “without examining its validity or allowing Justice Jahangiri to contest it.” It added that procedures and decisions of the University of Karachi regarding his degree, including actions taken by its Committee on Unfair Means, Syndicate, and subsequent statements, “are already under challenge before the Sindh High Court, where these procedures have been suspended.”
Judge Jahangiri also highlighted that the alleged events regarding his degree relate to investigations conducted decades ago and that the allegations leveled against him are “purely factual in nature requiring a full trial.” He denied the charges, stating that “his credentials have remained on file throughout his legal career, including during his enrollment as a lawyer and subsequent judicial appointments.”
Through the petition, filed by lawyer Uzair Bhandari, Justice Jahangiri sought leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal, setting aside the IHC’s December 9 order and dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.
Read more: Justice Jahangiri challenges IHC order in case of law before FCC
Earlier this year, lawyer Mian Dawood also filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) challenging Jahangiri’s appointment.
The case has had a long legal process. On September 16, the same IHC division bench heard the petition for the first time and issued an interim order restraining Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial duties pending determination of the maintainability of the petition. The order, which was issued without prior notice to the judge, sparked debate in the legal community about whether a high court could suspend a sitting judge.
On 29 September, the Supreme Court intervened and lifted the restraining order. A five-member Constitutional Court bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan ruled that a Supreme Court cannot prevent a judge from performing judicial functions while hearing a petition for a quo warranto. The ruling clarified that it addressed only the legality of the preliminary ruling, not the merits of the allegations, and ordered the IHC to rule on all preliminary objections and proceed in accordance with the law.
Justice Jahangiri was also among six IHC judges who wrote to the SJC last year alleging interference in judicial affairs by spy agencies. The letter ignited a wider debate about judicial independence and led to calls for a formal inquiry.
