ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday ruled that a petition challenging Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s academic credentials is admissible and instructed the judge and other involved parties to submit their replies within a three-day window.
A two-member division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, heard the case initiated by Advocate Mian Dawood. The focal point of the case is a dispute over Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree, which was revoked by the University of Karachi.
The university’s notification, issued on September 25, states that during a syndicate meeting on August 31, 2024, “Resolution No 06” was approved following the recommendation of the Unfair Means Committee (UFM). The notification further declared that Justice Jahangiri was found guilty of dishonest practices and is barred from admission to any university or college, as well as from taking part in any examinations, for a period of three years.
Additionally, the University of Karachi clarified that Justice Jahangiri was never enrolled as a student at Islamia Law College, Karachi, in 1989.
Earlier, the same bench had temporarily restrained Justice Jahangiri from carrying out judicial duties until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) made a decision on the petition filed by Mian Dawood. However, five IHC judges, including Justice Jahangiri, challenged this order in the Supreme Court, which later stayed the restriction.
The Supreme Court permitted Justice Jahangiri to continue his judicial functions but directed the petitioner to address objections related to the petition’s maintainability before proceeding further in the IHC.Subsequent hearings saw the IHC bench seek relevant documentation from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) regarding Justice Jahangiri’s law degree. The responses from both the HEC and the University of Karachi were submitted and reviewed during today’s proceedings.
A large gathering of bar office-bearers and lawyers assembled at the courtroom, prompting Chief Justice Dogar to advise them to sit down, emphasizing that the court would first consider the petition’s admissibility.Advocate Dawood began his arguments, asserting that under Article 193 of the Constitution, a high court judge must be a qualified lawyer. He cited a newspaper report, which included confirmation from the Karachi University examinations controller that Justice Jahangiri’s degree was fake.
He argued the core issue was whether the court could entertain a petition challenging a high court judge’s credentials, describing it as a writ of quo warranto questioning the judge’s eligibility as both a lawyer and a judge. Dawood emphasized that the judge should clarify if his degree was legitimate, and under Article 209, any allegations arising after a judge’s oath-taking fall under the jurisdiction of the SJC.He also referenced the case of Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, asserting that Justice Jahangiri now bears the burden of proving the authenticity of his degree.
Following Dawood’s presentation, the court requested Barrister Zafarullah to assist in the matter. However, lawyers from the Islamabad Bar insisted on being heard first. Representing around 8,000 lawyers, the Islamabad Bar’s legal team argued that the petition was filed by the Islamabad District Bar Association, and the petitioner was not an aggrieved party. They contended that if there were concerns about the judge’s qualifications, the proper authority to address them was the Bar Council.
The bar’s counsel explained that a minimum of ten years’ practice as an advocate is necessary for appointment as a high court judge, and licensing and qualification verification are the Bar Council’s responsibilities. They maintained that Justice Jahangiri’s legal credentials were duly verified when he was appointed, and any issues should be addressed by the Bar Council, not the court.
The lawyers argued that if anyone questioned the judge’s advocacy experience, they should approach the Bar Council. They also emphasized that factual inquiries about a judge’s qualifications are outside the court’s jurisdiction and should be directed to the SJC.Opposing the maintainability of the petition, the Islamabad Bar’s counsel urged the court to refrain from interfering with the powers of the Bar Council, noting no formal complaint had been filed with the council and that it remains an independent body.
When Chief Justice Dogar inquired whether the bar was attempting to block the case, the lawyers clarified that the court could not issue a fact-finding report or decision. They added that the High Court consists of the Chief Justice and other judges, and urged the bench not to treat their colleague as subordinate.Ultimately, the court declared the petition filed by Dawood admissible and ordered all parties to submit their responses within three days.
