Islamabad:
The judge of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC), Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, made a request before the Supreme Court, requesting an early hearing of his constitutional request against an order from the CIH the claim to hear the affairs. He asked the Apex court to hear the petition this week – from September 23 to 26.
On September 16, an IHC division bench including the chief judge Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and judge Muhammad Azam Khan prevented Judge Jahangiri from exercising his functions when he took a petition accusing the judge of holding a Deltaux Diploma
Interestingly, the bench also asked for help from the Pakistan Attorney General (AGP) Mansoor Awan on the question of whether the petition was kept while appointing the main lawyers Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Alus Ausaf as Amici Curiae.
The bench noted that until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) – the responsibility forum, which was also approached against judge Jahangiri – decides the case, the judge could not manage the cases.
On September 19, five IHC judges went to SC in person to deposit distinct constitutional petitions, making eleven different prayers, in particular a search for cancellation of the IHC ordinance, judge Jahangiri of judicial work.
In his request submitted on September 22, judge Jahangiri declared that it was a post established in law that a prohibition order could not be adopted to prevent a judge from the High Court from carrying out his work.
He declared that the case concerned important questions of law relating to the functional judge of the High Court and the independence of the judiciary, which was very worrying for any jurisdiction.
“The order of September 16 opens the valves to the dispute when any reference or complaint or petition against a judge can allow a high court to prevent it from performing its function.
“Consequently, an urgent intervention of this Court is required to correct the course and prevent such actions from the performance of the judges of the High Court.” He declared that the order had been adopted without considering the good faith of the person, Mian Daud Advocate, who deposited a petition against him.
In the absence of such good faith, he said, the petition deposited against him was not even kept. Consequently, this determination must be made at the beginning to close the door to such a dispute of Mala Fide initiated against constitutional officials.
“The crucial decision to prevent a judge from fulfilling his function was made without even hearing the counterposition. The petitioner has never been heard.
“Consequently, it is imperative that the objections to maintainability to the petition deposited against the petitioner be taken into account at the beginning, in order to prevent the dispute from unnecessarily preventing the petitioner from providing justice before the high court in which he serves.”
The judge said he could only serve as a high court judge, and that the time wasted due to the exploitation of the contested order could not be found by him.
