Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. Photo courtesy: IHC
ISLAMABAD:
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri accused Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar of misconduct by saying he was facing “immense pressure” to expeditiously terminate the quo warranto petition filed against him.
Justice Jahangiri had filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court through advocate Akram Sheikh, seeking to refer the case against his disqualification to the full bench comprising all judges except the transferred judges, including CJ Dogar.
“Although the matter remained sub judice before the Honorable Chief Justice, he discussed the pending matter with the Applicant, among others. During these discussions, the Honorable Chief Justice acknowledged that enormous pressure had been placed on him to expeditiously decide the case against the Applicant,” the application said.
It is also revealed that CJ Dogar suggested, directly and indirectly, that if the petitioner (Justice Jahangiri) submitted his post-dated resignation and handed it over to the Chief Justice for safekeeping, it would enable the Chief Justice to satiate those who are putting pressure on the Chief Justice and enable him to prolong the court proceedings.
“[The] The Chief Justice, by attempting to negotiate the outcome of a pending matter and making that outcome contingent on the resignation of the plaintiff, disqualified himself from serving as an arbitrator in this matter. The honorable Chief Justice must therefore recuse himself from hearing the matter,” the petition said.
It is claimed that such conduct by the Chief Justice constitutes a blatant violation of the code which prohibits any judge from discussing a pending case with any party to the case. The chief judge, following the pressure put on him, instead of respecting the code, chose to put pressure on his fellow judge to submit his resignation, he adds.
Similarly, Justice Jahangiri also filed a misconduct complaint against the IHC Chief Justice to the Supreme Judicial Council. The judge also sought disqualification of CJ Dogar on this ground.
Justice Jahangiri, filing a complaint of misconduct against the IHC Chief Justice, alleged that he had not spoken the truth “since the order announced to the court on 16.09.2025 was diametrically opposed and completely inconsistent with the one issued by the bench in a misleading manner, despite assurances, in open court, that the continuance of the petition will first be decided and the matter will be kept in abeyance until the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council.”
Similarly, despite the order of the Sindh High Court dated 03.10.2025 clearly stating that the declaration of the University of Karachi is stayed, the Chief Justice falsely declared on 02.12.2025 that the interim order is limited only following the proceedings of the university.
Similarly, it is further stated that the Chief Justice wrongly marked the presence of the complainant’s counsel on December 2, when the complainant was unrepresented, as no notice was issued to him before December 9. “Contrary to Article III of the Code, the conduct of the Chief Justice was not free from irregularities and apparent bias.”
“He has not refused to act in a matter involving his own interest” and where his opinion is influenced by personal advantage. The Chief Justice has an interest in penalizing the plaintiff for challenging his transfer, seniority, appointment to the position of Chief Justice, and subsequent actions as Chief Justice of the IHC, especially since if the plaintiff’s challenge to the seniority of the Chief Justice by the plaintiff is successful, the plaintiff will be superior to the Chief Justice.
The complaint states that Justice Dogar used the influence of his position as Chief Justice to settle the matter before him himself in order to gain an unfair advantage against a judge who dared to challenge his transfer and appointment: to ensure that he could manipulate the proceedings and outcome of the quo warranto petition.
He further abused his position to dispose of the matter in a division bench without any reason to deviate from the norm of such petitions being heard by single benches, to deny the complainant an appellate forum in the IHC.
It is also stated that the Chief Justice failed to maintain harmony within his court and the “integrity of the institution of justice” due to his own conduct. The adoption of the order dated September 16, 2025 prohibiting the complainant from exercising his judicial functions and even receiving such requests against colleagues seriously undermines the harmony within the IHC. This goes against the convention that judges exercise equal judicial power and must show courtesy to one another in the exercise of their duties.
The complaint further claimed that Article 189 of the Constitution makes decisions and orders of the Supreme Court binding on all lower courts, including the IHC, and that the Code requires judges to act in accordance with the Constitution, but that the Chief Justice acted in violation of the Constitution.
“Though the Supreme Court in an order dated 30.09.2025 said that the objection/maintainability has to be decided first, it proceeded with an application for registration of the diploma of the complainant, which concerns the merits of the case, before deciding the objection at a later date.”
It is contended that the Chief Justice, in discussing a pending case with the applicant and admitting that he is under pressure to: quickly decide the case against the applicant; and conditioning the outcome of negotiations in a pending case on the petitioner’s resignation blatantly violated Articles IV and XV of the Code.
“The conduct of the respondent Chief Justice constitutes misconduct. The respondent Chief Justice, through his conduct, has eroded public confidence in the judiciary and has refused to recuse himself from a matter in which he clearly has a conflict of interest, although this has been repeatedly highlighted.
“Respondent Chief Justice exercised his judicial power in a manifestly biased manner and in violation of the Code,” states the misconduct complaint against the IHC Chief Justice.
An IHC division bench headed by Justice Dogar fixed Justice Jahangiri’s applications for hearing today (Thursday).
Justice Jahangiri also challenged the IHC’s interim order that the quo warranto application regarding his deportation was declared admissible.
The judge retained the services of three lawyers: Akram Sheikh, lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed and Uzair Bhandari.
Additionally, Justice Jahangiri moved the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday, seeking quashing of an order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) which declared maintainable a plea challenging the legitimacy of his law degree.
He also requests the dismissal of the plea, which also calls into question the appointment of the IHC judge, “for not maintainable”.
