Islamabad:
The Supreme Court suspended on Monday an order from the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) which had prohibited the judge of the IHC Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri to carry out legal work. The IHC subsequently published a new list of cause, restaurant Jahangiri on simple and division benches.
A division bench led by the chief judge of the IHC, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, on September 16, had prevented judge Jahangiri from exercising his functions when she began the procedure on a petition which accuses her of holding a doubtful diploma of LLB.
On September 19, five IHC judges, including judge Jahangiri, went to the Supreme Court in person to deposit distinct constitutional petitions, making eleven different prayers, including a requesting the cancellation of the CIH order to jump Jahangiri from the judicial work.
However, on September 25, the University of Karachi canceled the judge’s LLB diploma in the light of a previous decision of his union, further complicating the situation.
On Monday, a constitutional bench (CB) of the SC – led by judge Aminuddin Khan and including judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi and judge Shahid Bilal Hassan – suspended the CPI order.
However, despite obtaining provisional help from the Supreme Court, Judge Jahangiri could still face a jumper road until the controversy surrounding his law diploma is resolved.
The CB is likely to decide today (Tuesday) if a high court can retain one of its judges from judicial work thanks to a legal order. There is little chance that the CB will approve the IHC order preventing Judge Jahangiri from fulfilling judicial functions.
However, the position of the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) will be crucial in this case. The CB generally grants a significant weight to the opinion of the AGP, in particular after the adoption of the 26th constitutional amendment.
The main lawyers await various possible results of the bench.
After putting aside the provisional order, the CB can return the case to the IHC for the first maintainability of the Petition of the Petition quo Garando filed against Judge Jahangiri.
CB can also argue that the complaint against the IHC judge is already underway before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which should meet on October 18.
We can also be advised to decide the brief of Warranto quo against Judge IHC himself. In this case, all the litigation files pending in the IHC and the high court of the Sindh can be summoned for final decision by the Supreme Court.
Some superior lawyers believe that the presence of five IHC judges – Mohin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz – in the courtroom during this case is very alarming for the judiciary. Now, all eyes are at the Supreme Court to see how he protects the independence of the judiciary.
Lawyer Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar pointed out that Monday’s hearing did not concern J. Jahangiri, but on the role of the Supreme Court in the safeguard of judicial independence.
“The forum appropriate to carry out a judge of a superior court has been, and will always be the SJC. The unprecedented process adopted by Judge Dogar is equivalent to usurping the powers of the SJC and opens the door to future purges. Autoritarianism requires complete submission, and history will not kindly seek on those who choose to collaborate,” added Khokhar.
Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar Advocate congratulated the provisional order of the CB, judging him expected and necessary, because retaining a judicial judge of judicial functions had no constitutional or legal basis.
“The suspension order reflects the role of the Supreme Court in the safeguarding of judicial independence and sends a clear signal that such measures cannot be maintained in law.”
Khokhar pointed out that the only competent forum to examine the conduct or continuation of a judge of the Court superior to power is the SJC under article 209, not a division bench or a complete bench of the same courtyard. This principle guarantees that judicial responsibility remains within its appropriate constitutional framework.
He declared that if administrative control can regulate the distribution of affairs, to retain a judge from all legal work is not an administrative act but an constitutional intervention, which is exclusively of the jurisdiction of the SJC.
The IHC division bench, despite its best intentions, therefore acted beyond its legal authority. The suspension by the Supreme Court of this order restores the good balance between the constitutional forums.
Khokhar also noted that by issuing opinions alongside the suspension order, the Supreme Court has established a previously necessary precedent: judges of the same court should not, in the future, adopt injunctive or limited orders against each other.
This, he underlined, is vital for institutional stature, credibility and discipline of the judiciary. These questions must be resolved either administratively or by the constitutionally mandated mechanism of the SJC, and not by intra-haired restriction measures.
