- Constitutional bench ruling says a judge can’t be restrained from work through interim order
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court set aside an interim order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that had restrained Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing judicial duties, ruling that “a judge cannot be barred from work on the basis of an interim order.”
A five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan heard the case.
Court proceedings
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, appearing before the bench, maintained that no judge could be barred from judicial work through an interim order. Senior lawyer Munir A. Malik also questioned the IHC’s directive, contending that any action against a judge could only be taken by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
In its written order, the Supreme Court observed that the petition filed before the IHC carried certain objections, and even the petitioner, Mian Dawood, admitted as much before the apex court. The SC therefore accepted Justice Jahangiri’s appeal, holding that the High Court must first decide on preliminary objections before proceeding further on the quo warranto petition.
Justice Jahangiri resumes duties
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri immediately resumed court work, presiding over a single bench and joining Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz on a division bench to hear cases. The IHC subsequently issued a fresh cause list reflecting his reinstatement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned the IHC’s September 16 order, when a division bench led by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar had barred Justice Jahangiri from performing duties while hearing a quo warranto petition challenging the legitimacy of his law degree. It was the first time in Pakistan’s judicial history that a high court had suspended one of its own sitting judges from hearing cases — a move described by his counsel as a “blow to judicial independence.”
Background to the case
The controversy deepened when, on September 25, the University of Karachi cancelled Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree in line with a previous decision of its syndicate. The judge, however, termed the cancellation unprecedented. “It is astonishing that they are cancelling a degree after 34 years. This has never happened in world history,” he told journalists, adding that he had already challenged the matter in the Sindh High Court.
Earlier, on September 19, five IHC judges, including Justice Jahangiri, had personally approached the Supreme Court to file constitutional petitions, making eleven different prayers, among them the quashing of the IHC order that barred him from judicial work.
Justice Jahangiri has described the case against him as “political victimisation,” linking it both to his role in the March 2024 IHC judges’ letter alleging surveillance of judges, and to his tenure as an election tribunal judge whose verdicts had unsettled ruling party candidates.
Broader implications
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling not only restores Justice Jahangiri to the bench but also underscores judicial consensus that disciplinary or disqualification proceedings against sitting judges must lie within the purview of the Supreme Judicial Council rather than be determined by interim high court orders.
With Jahangiri back on the bench, the legal and political ramifications of the Karachi University’s degree cancellation — and its potential bearing on his judicial future — are now expected to play out in the Sindh High Court.
