The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday suspended an order issued by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) barring[1] Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from carrying out judicial duties in a case pertaining to his law degree allegedly being fake.
The court also issued notices to the respondents in the case as well as the attorney general of Pakistan and adjourned the hearing till tomorrow.
A complaint[2] pertaining to Justice Jahangiri’s allegedly fake degree was submitted to the Supreme Judicial Council (SKC) last year in July, while a petition challenging his appointment was filed in the IHC earlier this year. The matter centres on a letter[3] that began circulating last year on social media, purportedly from the University of Karachi’s controller of examinations, regarding the judge’s law degree.
On September 16, the IHC had restrained Justice Jahangiri from exercising his judicial powers as a two-judge bench issued the interim order while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution. Justice Jahangiri then challenged[4] the decision in the SC, pleading for the restraining order to be set aside and suspended during the pendency of the petition, and for the division bench to be directed to hold back from proceeding further.
Today, a five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and including Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan took up Justice Jahangiri’s petition.
Also present at today’s hearing were Justice Jahangiri himself, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
Also present at the hearing was the Islamabad Council member Aleem Abbasi, who requested the bench to make him, the council and the District Bar Association respondents in the case.
To this, Justice Mandokhel asked if they were a respondent in the IHC case as well, stating that the main petitioner was Justice Jahangiri.
Justice Aminuddin Khan, responding to this, said that the “SC will follow its own standard procedure and fix the application once it has been numbered.”
For his part, Justice Jahangiri’s lawyer, Munir A. Malik, told the court that this was the first instance that “a two-member judge has prevented a judge of its own high court from judicial work”. He argued that order issued against Justice Jahangiri was in violation of the law while the requirements of justice were also not met.
He noted that a writ petition was filed against Justice Jahangiri on July 10, 2024. “More than a year has passed yet the objections raised by the registrar’s office are still pending,” he said.
He told the court that after the writ petition against Justice Jahangiri was filed, there were several incidents of note, including the “transfer of three judges to IHC, which five IHC judges contested[5], but it was later declared valid”.
He said that the judge who issued the Sept 16 order against his client was the one against whose transfer the plea had been filed in the SC.
He reiterated that the objections raised on the plea filed against Justice Jahangiri still remained and the other parties in the case had not yet been heard. “Sixteen months have passed [since the plea was filed] and the objections still remain,” he said.
He also highlighted a recent order[6] issued by the SC’s Justice Mandokhail, which stated that judges cannot initiate contempt proceedings against their peers and established that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has the constitutional authority to probe misconduct allegations against the judges of both the apex and high courts.
Meanwhile, Justice Hassan wondered how the plea against Justice Jahangiri was fixed for hearing when objections were raised by the registrar’s office. He told the lawyers of both sides to prepare arguments in this regard.
The hearing was subsequently adjourned for tomorrow.