Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. Photo: IHC
ISLAMABAD:
In the upcoming hearing of a petition accusing Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri of holding an invalid law degree, the judge is likely to appear in person before a division bench that on Tuesday sought his reply.
According to the source, Justice Jahangiri will come to the IHC Courtroom-1 where Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan will resume proceedings on Mian Dawood Advocate’s quo warranto petition tomorrow (Monday).
Last week, on December 9, the bench had declared the petition maintainable. It had also issued notices to the judge and other respondents and sought written responses within three days.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Islamabad Advocate General Ayaz Shaukat told the court that according to a report submitted by the University of Karachi (KU), Islamia Law College, an affiliated institute of KU, had declared Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri “an unknown person”.
The petitioner, Mian Dawood Advocate, argued that under Article 193 of the Constitution, a Supreme Court judge must be a lawyer.
He said Justice Jahangiri did not even qualify to become a lawyer, let alone a judge. He added that whether the allegation is true or false, the onus is now on Justice Jahangiri to prove that his degree is genuine.
Advocate representing Islamabad Bar Association, Advocate Ahmed Hasan, argued that the petitioner – Mian Dawood – is not an aggrieved party.
He stated that to become a country judge, ten years of legal practice is mandatory and the issuance of a license to practice law falls under the jurisdiction of the relevant Bar Council.
“If there is any error in the degree or eligibility to practice law, the case should be brought before the Bar Council, not the court.”
He further warned that if a Supreme Court judge initiates a trial against another judge, it would harm the judicial system.
He added that following legal practice, Justice Jahangiri was appointed as a judge by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the matter should be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as a Supreme Court cannot conduct fact-finding in such cases.
Islamabad Bar Council member Raja Aleem Abbasi argued that cases relating to judges should be handled by the JCP, whereas cases relating to advocacy fall under the Bar Council.
He also objected to CJ Dogar sitting on the bench, saying that since a petition against Dogar’s transfer to the IHC – filed by Justice Jahangiri – is pending before the Federal Constitutional Court, he should not hear this matter.
Abbasi requested the court to transfer the case to another court.
The court assigned amicus curiae, Barrister Zafarullah Khan, also presented arguments on the maintainability of the quowarranto writ.
The Chief Justice observed that the university categorically stated that Justice Jahangiri was never a student of Islamia Law College.
The bench later issued notices to Justice Jahangiri, the Federal Government through the Ministry of Law, the President through his Principal Secretary, the JCP Secretary and the Parliamentary Committee on Judicial Appointments, asking all respondents to submit their responses within 3 days.
Earlier, KU submitted its report stating that in 1989, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri was found guilty by the Unfair Means Committee of cheating in the LLB Part-I examination and of issuing threats against the examiner, resulting in a three-year ban.
Although he became eligible to resit for the exam in 1992, he allegedly used a fake enrollment form from 1990 with a forged Government Islamia Law College stamp to obtain his degree, and he changed names and enrollment numbers several times to acquire the mark sheet and the degree.
