The Supreme Court on Monday suspended an Islamabad High Court order that had restrained Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from judicial work over an alleged fake degree case.
The case was heard by a five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shahid Bilal Hasan.
Justice Jahangiri appeared before the apex court along with four Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges — Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Ejaz Ishaq and Saman Rafat Imtiaz — who all entered the court premises through the public entrance.
Outside the court, a journalist asked Jahangiri about Karachi University’s decision to cancel his law degree. “I have already filed a petition in the Sindh High Court,” he replied. “It is astonishing that they are cancelling a degree after 34 years. This has never happened in world history.”
The University of Karachi had earlier declared Jahangiri’s academic record “fictitious,” after its Unfair Means Committee (UMC) concluded he had never been enrolled at Islamia Law College and engaged in malpractice during his LLB exams in the 1980s. The KU Syndicate endorsed the findings, which became the basis of a complaint now before the Supreme Judicial Council.
Read: IHC judge hit with a double whammy
During proceedings, Justice Mandokhail remarked that the matter before the bench was confined to the IHC’s interim order. “The Supreme Judicial Council meeting has already been scheduled for October 18,” he added.
Justice Shahid Bilal questioned how a writ petition against Jahangiri was numbered despite unresolved objections by the registrar’s office. “The SC has already ruled that a judge cannot be barred from judicial work,” Justice Mandokhail observed.
Counsel for Justice Jahangiri, Muneer A. Malik, argued that a judge cannot be stopped from performing judicial duties while a complaint is pending before the SJC. “This is the first time in history that a high court’s own bench has stopped one of its judges from judicial work,” he said. “The settled law was ignored. The order did not meet the requirements of justice.”
Malik added that the petition against his client was filed on July 10, 2024, and had been pending for over a year with objections still unresolved.
Read More: 5 IHC judges challenge CJ’s powers in SC
“Despite that, an interim order was issued without hearing the other side,” he contended. He further pointed out that the same IHC chief justice had earlier presided over a bench in judges’ transfer cases, which are still pending before the SC.
Advocate Mian Dawood, the petitioner, argued that the SC had previously barred Justice Sajjad Ali Shah from judicial work. Justice Mazhar responded that the order in that case was passed under Article 184(3), noting: “The facts were entirely different.”
Malik urged the court to suspend the IHC order to avoid sending “the wrong signal.” He stressed that the ruling violated the Malik Asad Ali case precedent.
At the conclusion of the hearing, following consultations between Justices Aminuddin and Mandokhail, the apex court suspended the IHC order. Notices were issued to the Attorney General’s Office, the Advocate General of Islamabad, and other parties. The matter was adjourned until Tuesday.
Also Read: Judges in the public queue
Earlier, Justice Jahangiri’s challenges before the Sindh High Court were dismissed after his counsels staged a walkout, with the bench calling the conduct “highly unbecoming.” This left the KU cancellation intact at the provincial level.
It may be recalled that on September 16, IHC CJ Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar led the bench that restrained Jahangiri from judicial work. This was the first time in Pakistan’s history that a high court had stopped its own sitting judge from hearing cases — an order his counsel called a blow to judicial independence.
The Islamabad Bar Council and District Bar Association have also filed applications to become parties to the case.
Justice Jahangiri has termed the controversy “political victimisation,” linking it to his role in the March 2024 IHC judges’ letter about surveillance of judges and to his work as an election tribunal judge whose decisions had upset ruling party candidates.
He insists that cancelling a degree after 34 years is unprecedented worldwide and a direct attack on judicial independence.
