Islamabad:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday canceled a provisional order from Islamabad High Court (IHC) which had retained the Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri judge to carry out legal work.
On Tuesday, a constitutional bench (CB) of the SC – led by judge Aminuddin Khan and comprising judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and judge Shahid Bilal Hassan – resumed the petition of judge Jahangiri.
A bench of the IHC division led by chief judge Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar on September 16 prevented judge Jahangiri from exercising his functions when he began the procedure on a petition quo warranto accusing her of holding a dubious LLB diploma.
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.
During the procedures on Tuesday, the Pakistan Attorney General (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the bench and argued that a judge could not be prohibited for legal work thanks to a provisional order.
Judge Amicin Khan asked the petitioner, Mian Dawood Advocate, for his opinion. Dawood agreed with the AGP, claiming that, in his opinion also, a judge cannot be retained from the execution of legal duties by provisional means.
Bringing in Malik, the lawyer for judge Jahangiri, while advancing the arguments, referred to a previous CB order, noting that she had only declared that the petition of the brief was maintained. He argued that, in his opinion, only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has the power to carry out a judge.
He added that the Malik Asad Ali affair did not maintain that these briefs were kept in front of the high court, and care must be taken not to give the impression that the SC had approved the maintainability of the shorts in this context.
Judge Amicin Khan pointed out that the SC ordinance reproduced only the language of the Malik Asad Ali affair. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that the court had previously judged that only the SJC could withdraw a judge.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar said the court did not address the maintainability of a brief of Warranto quo in this case. “We haven’t said anywhere that the brief was kept in front of the high court. It is up to the IHC to decide whether the petition deposited is maintained or not.”
He also noted that the objections of the registrar’s office on the Warranto quo petition against Judge Jahangiri are still in instance, and the only question before the SC was whether a judge could be prevented from working by the provisional order.
Judge Mandokhail observed that the arguments in brief IHC request affirmed that the judges of SC and the High Court are the service of Pakistan and are not holders of public functions – points which could be debated when the IHC hears the case on merit.
“In this case, we deliberately do not wish to enter the bottom,” he added.
