On Monday, the Supreme Court suspended an Islamabad High Court decision that had withheld Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from legal work over an alleged false degree.
The case was heard by a five-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and consisting of Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shahid Bilal Hasan.
Justice Jahangiri appeared in the point of view with four Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges – Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Ejaz Ishaq and Saman Rafat Imtiaz – all of which entered the court’s premises through the public entrance.
Outside of court, a journalist Jahangiri asked about Karachi University’s decision to cancel his legal degree. “I have already filed a petition in Sindh High Court,” he replied. “It is amazing that they cancel a degree after 34 years. This has never happened in world history.”
The University of Karachi had previously declared Jahangiri’s academic record “fictional” after the unreasonable funding committee (UMC) concluded that he had never been enrolled in Islamia Law College and engaged in Malpractice during his LLB exams in the 1980s. The cow -syndicate approved the conclusions that became the basis of a complaint now for the highest Judicial Council.
Read: IHC -judge hit with a double whammy
During the procedure, Justice Mandokhail noted that the case before the bench was limited to IHC’s temporary order. “The highest legal council meeting is already scheduled for October 18,” he added.
Justice Shahid Bilal questioned how a written petition against Jahangiri was numbered despite unclear objections from the Justice Secretary’s office. “SC has already decided that a judge cannot be abolished from legal work,” justice Mandokhail observed.
Lawyer for Justice Jahangiri, Muneer A. Malik, claimed that a judge cannot be stopped from performing legal duties while a complaint is pending for SJC. “This is the first time in history that a Supreme Court’s own bench has stopped one of his judges from court work,” he said. “The established law was ignored. The order did not meet the requirements for justice.”
Malik added that the petition against his client was filed on July 10, 2024, and had been piercing for over a year of objections that were still unresolved.
Read more: 5 IHC referees challenge CJ’s powers in SC
“Despite that, a temporary order was issued without hearing the other side,” he claimed. He also pointed out that the same IHC High Court previously had chairman of a bench in the judges’ transfer cases still pending before SC.
Attorney Mian Dawood, the petitioner, claimed that SC had previously blocked justice Sajjad Ali Shah from judicial work. Justice Mazhar replied that the order in this case was adopted in accordance with Article 184 (2). 3, and noted, “Facts were completely different.”
Malik called on the right to suspend the IHC order to avoid sending “the wrong signal.” He emphasized that the decision violated Malik Asad Ali case precedent.
At the end of the hearing, after consultations between Justice’s Aminuddin and Mandokhail, the pointed right IHC order suspended. Announcements were issued to the Attorney General’s Office, the Attorney General of Islamabad and other parties. The case was postponed until Tuesday.
ALSO READ: Judge in the public queue
Earlier, Justice Jahangiri’s challenges for Sindh High Court were dismissed after his advice staged a walkout where the bench called behavior “very effortless.” This left the KU -Annullering intact at the provincial level.
It can be remembered that IHC CJ Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar on September 16 led the bench that maintained Jahangiri from judicial work. This was the first time in Pakistan’s history that a Supreme Court had prevented his own sitting judge from hearing cases – an order his lawyer called a battle against judicial independence.
Islamabad Bar Council and District Bar Association has also filed applications for becoming parties to the case.
Justice Jahangiri has referred to the controversy “political victim”, which links it to his role in the IHC judge’s letter on monitoring the judges and to his work as an election court whose decisions had disturbed the ruling party’s candidates.
He insists that cancellation of a degree after 34 years is unprecedented throughout the world and a direct attack on the independence of the court.
