The charge against CJ Dogar aims to create a hostile judicial environment
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has rejected sacked Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s allegation that Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar tried to negotiate with him for a post-dated resignation, terming the claim baseless and without evidence.
In a detailed 116-page judgment written by Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, the court categorically rejected the charge and defended the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
The ruling states that the allegation that the IHC Chief Justice attempted to negotiate a post-dated resignation is categorically rejected as baseless, scandalous and far from the truth.
These assertions appear to be a strategic attempt to create a hostile judicial environment and obstruct the proceedings regarding Plaintiff/Respondent #1’s own qualifications.
Such serious and inexcusable allegations against the head of an institution, without the slightest proof brought to the court, undermine the dignity of the court, the independence of the judiciary and do not constitute a valid reason for recusal.
The development follows a ruling in December by a division bench headed by IHC Chief Justice Dogar, which accepted a quo warranto application and declared that Jahangiri’s LLB degree was invalid at the time of his appointment.
The detailed judgment dismissing Jahangiri’s objections observed that the fact that the matter is pending before the Sindh High Court (SHC) does not prevent the Islamabad High Court from deciding the writ of quo warranto.
The Court further ruled that judicial independence does not mean remaining in office at all costs, but rather is about upholding constitutional norms.
“By removing a person whose appointment was contrary to existing law and the Constitution itself, the judiciary is cleaning itself out, thereby strengthening its independence and credibility. On the other hand, ignoring such a fundamental flaw would send a message of double standards that judges are somehow above the rules that apply to everyone else. Such a perception would seriously erode public trust, which is important to maintaining and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.”
The judgment also addressed concerns raised regarding comity between judges and collegial harmony. The Court recognized that judges are generally reluctant to bring charges against their peers except in exceptional circumstances. However, he clarified that these considerations are prudential rather than binding legal principles.
The court said allowing one High Court judge to sit instead of another could harm collegial harmony and would harm the judiciary.
