Islamabad:
Contesting the decision of last year of the University of Karachi to dismiss his law degree after 32 years, the judge of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC), Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, told the High Court of Sindh (SHC) that he was facing the punishment of powerful members of the executive for the exercise of judicial autonomy.
On August 31, 2024, the Union of the University of Karachi canceled the allegedly “invalid” degree of justice Jahangiri on the recommendations of the University University Means Committee (UFM). However, SHC on September 5, 2024 suspended the university’s decision.
However, last week – September 16 – an IHC division bench including chief judge Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and judge Muhammad Azam Khan prevented Judge Jahangiri from exercising his functions because she took a petition accusing the judge of holding a dubious LLB diploma.
The judge challenged the decision of the Supreme Court, including the constitutional bench of five members (CB) led by judge Aminuddin Khan and including judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi and judge Shahid Waheed will hear the case on September 29.
Judge Jahangiri has now filed a petition in the SHC, declaring that the general context in which the illegal and mala cancellation of his LLB diploma took place is the unfailing judicial independence that he has demonstrated.
“Two prominent examples stand out,” notes the petition. “First, the petitioner is one of the six signatories of the letter of 25.03.2024, written by judges of the Honorable IHC, in which detailed examples have been given interference and surveillance by federal government agencies (respondent n ° 5), including the installation of surveillance equipment in his house.
“It was such an unforeseen and cheeky attack against the independence of the judiciary that the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan instituted the SUO Motu N ° 1 affair of 2024 to examine this invasion and subversion of judicial independence, adopted various ordinances, and the case is still an under-plain.
“Secondly, the petitioner was one of the judges appointed as an electoral court for the territory of Islamabad, and his appointment was rigorously and systematically opposed by the winning candidates of the ruling party, who led to the transfer of the affairs of the electoral courts.”
Judge Jahangiri argues that his actions and his legal proceedings, affirming independence against the interference of leaders by the federal government and his agencies, created the specific context in which the illegal and mala cancellation of his LLB diploma took place.
The petition stipulates that, in order to penalize the petitioner judge for affirming judicial independence, two measures have been taken. First, a “mysterious” complaint dated July 4, 2024 was filed before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), alleging that the LLB degree of the petitioner was false and forged and that it should therefore be withdrawn from the judicial function.
“Second, a defamation campaign was launched in the media concerning the controversy surrounding the LLB diploma of the petitioner.” Later, a new strategy was adopted by Mala Fively and illegally abusing the processes and institutions of the University of Karachi.
“The first step in this activation strategy of the University of Karachi against the petitioner was the meeting of the UFM Committee, held on August 17, 2024 at the Examination Controller Office.
“The decision of the UFM Committee is shocking and surprising for the following reasons. First, there is nothing in the Dispute UFM decision which reveals why the case of the LLB diploma of the petitioner was taken after 32 years of its program.
“This decision outside the blue concerning an in -office judge of the High Court, made by an executive organization of a university after decades, Reeks of Mala Fides.
“Secondly, no opinion was issued to the petitioner to respond to the allegations brought against his LLB diploma, which constitutes a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. Third, considering that this question concerns a judge in office of a high court, it is surprising that it was taken up by an executive committee of the University of Karachi and decided at a single meeting.
“In short, Mala Fides float in the file. Fourth, under Regulation 14 (IX) of the conduct of the rules on the examination, issued under the 1972 law of the University of Karachi, the unjust resources committee (which made the UFM contested decision) must be appointed by the union of the respondent n ° 1.
“The union has never appointed such a UFM committee, and consequently, the disputed decision of the UFM is clearly without competence.
He also asks the SHC to allow him to document the details of the efforts made to influence the result of judicial decisions during the procedures and to provide a supporting personal affidavit.
The petitioner asks the SHC to declare that the minutes of the 653rd union meeting dated August 31, 2024 from the University of Karachi is unconstitutional, without competence, illegal and Mala Fide, and be put aside.
It is also argued that the decision of the UFM Committee dated August 17, 2024 is unconstitutional, without competence, illegal and Mala Fide, and should also be canceled.
“Consequently, suspend the functioning of the agenda n ° 6 of the minutes of the 653rd meeting of the union dated 31.08.2024 of the respondent n ° 1 and the decision of the unjust committee of 17.08.2024 (except para 3 of the decision), or any other similar decision, and to denounce that any opposing or coercive decision against the petitioner based on the petitioner
The petition also requests the declaration that these actions are mala fide in law and in fact, and are also prohibited by limitation.
SC lists the Jahangiri petition for September 29
The Supreme Court has now listed the request of Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri for September 29 against the IHC ordinance, holding him from judicial work.
It is not clear if judge Jahangiri will appear himself or will initiate his advice in this case. The Islamabad Bar Council also challenged the IHC judgment against him.
However, questions are raised on the composition of CB. Lawyers emphasize that by virtue of the 26th amendment, there should be a representation of each province in the constitutional benches.
However, no judge belonging to the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) was included in the bench case when hearing judge Jahangiri, even if 15 judges were appointed for constitutional benches. Interestingly, judge Ishtiaq Ibrahim has not yet been included in any constitutional bench.
Lawyers urge the committee responsible for the training of benches to give equal chances to all judges to hear important cases. Earlier, criticisms had also been directed against chief judges for including judges “sharing the same ideas” in benches hearing very publicized business.
A representative of the Association of the Supreme Court Bar (SCBA) told L’Express PK Press Club that he had urged a member of the committee to train various benches to rule on the questions relating to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution. He wondered why a single constitutional bench worked at the same time.
