Islamabad:
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has told Sindh High Court (SHC), which challenges the University of Karachi’s last year’s decision to revoke his legal degree after 32 years.
On August 31, 2024, the University of Karachi’s Syndicate canceled the allegedly “invalid” degree of justice Jahangiri on recommendations from the university’s unreasonable means (UFM) Committee. However, on September 5, 2024, SHC suspended the university’s decision.
Last week – September 16 – a division bench of IHC, which consisted of Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, Justice Jahangiri stopped in performing his duties when it took a petition who accused the judge of having a questionable LLB degree.
The judge contested the decision in the Supreme Court, whose five-member constitutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and consisted of justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed will hear the case on September 29.
Justice Jahangiri has now filed a petition in SHC, claiming that the general context in which the illegal and Mala Fide -Annullering of his LLB degree has taken place is the obscurity judge he has demonstrated.
“Two prominent examples stand out,” notes the petition. “First, the petitioner is one of the six signatories to the letter dated 25.03.2024, written by judges of the honorary IHC, where detailed examples were given by the interference and monitoring of agencies for the federal government (Responser # 5), including the installation of monitoring equipment in his house.
“This was such an unprecedented and courageous attack on the independence of the judiciary that the Honorable Supreme Court in Pakistan introduced the Suo Motu case # 1 of 2024 to investigate this invasion and undermining the independence of the court, adopted various orders, and the case is still under Judice.
“Secondly, the petitioner was one of the judge who was appointed to the right to vote for the Islamabad territory, and his appointment was carefully and consistently opposite to the winning candidates from the reigning party, leading to the transfer of cases from the right to vote.”
Justice Jahangiri claims that his actions and litigation that claims independence against performing interference from the federal government and its agencies created the specific context within which the illegal and Mala Fide cancellation of his LLB degree has taken place.
The petition says that two measures to punish the demanders of claiming the independence of the court was initiated. First, a “mysterious” complaint was submitted dated July 4, 2024 to the Supreme Court Council (SJC), who claimed that the petitioner’s LLB degree was false and blacksmith, and that he should therefore be removed from the Judicial Office.
“Secondly, a smear campaign was launched in the media about the controversy around the petitioner’s LLB degree.” Later, a new strategy was adopted by Mala Fidely and illegal abuse of processes and institutions at the University of Karachi.
“The first step in this strategy to activate the University of Karachi against the petitioner was the meeting of the UFM Committee held on August 17, 2024 in the Office of the Controller for Studies.
“The decision of the UFM Committee is shocking and surprising for the following reasons. First, there is nothing in the intended UFM resolution that reveals why the case of the secondary degree of LLB was taken up after 32 years after the issue.
“This out of the blue decision on a sitting judge at High Court, taken by a executive body at a university after decades, rows of Mala Fides.
“Secondly, no notice was issued to the petitioner to respond to the claims against his LLB degree, which is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, considering that this question relates to a sitting judge at a Supreme Court, it is astonishing that it was taken up by an executive committee at the University of Karachi and decided within a single meeting.
“In short, Mala Fides is flowing in the post. For the fourth, according to regulation 14 (IX) of the implementation of examination regulations issued under the University of Karachi Act, 1972, the unreasonable Middle Ages (which issued the forced UFM decision) must be appointed as Syndicate of Respondent No. 1.
“The Syndicate has never appointed such a UFM Committee, and consequently the intended UFM decision is clearly without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is obvious and obvious that the imposed UFM decision is without jurisdiction, illegal, Mala Fide and part of the aforementioned campaign to undermine the rightful independence of the Court of Ingredients and Ihc.”
He also requests SHC to allow him to document details of efforts to influence the outcome of court decisions during the procedure and to provide a personal statement in support.
The petitioner requests the SHC to declare that the protocol of the 653.
It is also claimed that the decision of the UFM Committee dated August 17, 2024 is constitutional without jurisdiction, illegal and Mala Fide and should also be set aside.
“As a consequence, the operation of agenda # 6 of the protocol is suspended from the 653. that is based on would be unattractive. ”
The petition also requests a statement that these actions are Mala Fide in the law and actually, and is also cut off by limitation.
SC shows Jahangiri’s petition for September 29
The Supreme Court has now erected Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s petition for September 29 against the IHC order, which retained him from court work.
It is not clear whether Justice Jahangiri will even appear or engage advice in this case. Islamabad Bar Council has also challenged IHC’s judgment against him.
However, questions are raised about the composition of CB. Attorneys point out that during the 26th change there should be representation from each province of constitutional benches.
Still, no judge belongs to the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) in the bench hearing Justice Jahangiri’s case, although 15 judges have been nominated for constitutional benches. Interestingly, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim has not yet been included in any constitutional bench.
Attorneys encourage the committee responsible for bench formation to provide equal opportunities for all judges to hear important cases. Previously, criticism had also been directed at Chief Justices for having included “like -minded” judges in benches hearing high -profile cases.
A representative of the Supreme Court’s Bar Association (SCBA) told The Express Pakinomist that he had called on a committee member to form various benches to judge issues relating to the interpretation of the law and the constitution. He wondered why only one constitutional bench worked at a time.
