By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: A judge on Islamabad High Court has asked the Supreme Court to urgently hear his challenge to a restraining order that has barred him from performing judicial duties, after questions arose about the validity of his law degree, court documents showed.
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri filed an application seeking an early hearing of his plea against the Sept. 16 order, which was issued by a two-judge bench of the high court amid allegations that his degree from Karachi University is fraudulent. The move comes as the high court grapples with broader internal controversies, including disputes over bench assignments and case handling.
The restraining order stemmed from a writ petition filed earlier this year by lawyer Mian Dawood under Article 199 of the Constitution, which allows the high court to issue directions in matters of public importance. A divisional bench headed by Chief Justice Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar and including Justice Mohammad Azam Khan issued the interim directive last week, preventing Jahangiri from exercising his judicial powers while the petition is heard.
Jahangiri, who appeared in person before the Supreme Court last Friday to challenge the decision, argued in his plea that the order should be set aside and suspended pending the petition’s resolution. He also requested that the high court bench be directed to refrain from further proceedings in the matter.
The controversy over Jahangiri’s qualifications dates back to last year, when a complaint about his allegedly fake degree was submitted to the Supreme Judicial Council in July. The issue gained traction after a letter, purportedly from Karachi University’s controller of examinations, began circulating on social media, casting doubt on the judge’s law degree.
In his application for an early Supreme Court hearing, filed through Advocate Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Jahangiri emphasized the broader implications for judicial independence. “The case concerns the important questions of law relating to the functioning of a judge of the high court and the independence of the judiciary, which are of grave concern to any jurisdiction. Hence, urgent intervention of this court is required,” the application stated.
It further warned that the order could set a dangerous precedent. “The impugned order opens the floodgates to litigation where any pending reference/complaint/petition, against any judge, can permit a high court to prevent him from performing his function. Hence, urgent intervention of this court is required to correct course and prevent such actions from straitjacketing the performance of judges of the high court.”
The application contended that the restraining order was issued without assessing Dawood’s bona fides and that the underlying petition was not maintainable absent such scrutiny. “Hence, this determination must be made at the onset to close the door to any such mala fide litigation initiated against constitutional functionaries,” it added.
Jahangiri also highlighted procedural flaws, noting that the decision to sideline him was made without hearing his side. “The crucial decision to restrain a judge from performing his function was made without even hearing the counterposition. The petitioner was never heard. Hence, it is imperative that the objections to maintainability to the petition filed against the petitioner be considered at the very onset, to prevent the litigation from unnecessarily precluding the petitioner from dispensing justice in the high court that he serves in.”
Invoking the principle that such orders cannot halt a high court judge’s functions under established law, the application stressed the personal and professional toll: “The petitioner can only serve as a judge of the high court till a particular age, and time lost due to the operation of the impugned order cannot be regained by him. Hence, this court must urgently intervene in the matter so that the petitioner can be restored and can continue to dispense justice in the high court that he serves in.”
Jahangiri requested that his petition be scheduled for a hearing this week.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
