By Asif Naveed
ISLAMABAD (MNN); The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed objections raised by Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri against the constitution of a division bench hearing petitions challenging the authenticity of his law degree and his appointment as a judge.
According to court proceedings that came to light on Tuesday, the objections were rejected by a division bench headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan. Justice Jahangiri, who is also a sitting judge of the IHC, had raised the objections during Monday’s hearing of a petition filed by lawyer Mian Dawood questioning his qualifications.
The same bench had earlier restrained Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial duties in September; however, that interim order was later set aside by the Supreme Court.
Justice Jahangiri appeared in person before the bench and argued that the petition should have been heard by a single bench instead of a division bench. He also expressed a lack of confidence in Chief Justice Dogar, citing the filing of an intra-court appeal against the chief justice before the Supreme Court.
In a detailed order issued after the hearing, the court held that, given the sensitive nature of allegations involving an invalid or fake degree against a sitting judge, the formation of a division bench was appropriate and in the interest of justice. The court further observed that the constitution of benches is the exclusive administrative authority of the chief justice.
The bench noted that similar matters had previously been heard by division benches and found Justice Jahangiri’s objection to be without legal force.
Regarding the expression of no confidence in Chief Justice Dogar, the court pointed out that the related plea had already been dismissed by the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on November 24. The court recalled that Justice Jahangiri, along with four other IHC judges, had filed an intra-court appeal in July challenging the Supreme Court’s decision on IHC seniority, which elevated Justice Dogar. That appeal was later dismissed for non-prosecution.
Citing past Supreme Court rulings, the IHC observed that judges of superior courts are the keepers of their own conscience and that transfer applications on the ground of alleged bias do not lie against high court judges. Based on these precedents, the court rejected Justice Jahangiri’s objection regarding lack of confidence in the bench.
During the hearing, Justice Jahangiri informed the court that he had not been provided with the record of the case and sought time to engage private counsel. The court directed the Higher Education Commission (HEC) to provide him with its report and annexures.
Earlier, on December 8, the HEC submitted a detailed report endorsing the University of Karachi’s findings that Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree had been obtained through unfair means. The court ordered that copies of the petition and all relevant reports be provided to the respondent.
The court also summoned the University of Karachi registrar, along with the complete record of Justice Jahangiri’s law degree, for the next hearing scheduled on December 18.
Background of the case
The controversy originated from a letter circulated on social media last year, allegedly issued by the University of Karachi’s controller of examinations, questioning the authenticity of Justice Jahangiri’s law degree. A complaint was subsequently filed before the Supreme Judicial Council in July last year, followed by a petition in the IHC challenging his appointment.
On September 16, the IHC division bench initially restrained Justice Jahangiri from judicial work through an interim order, a move that triggered legal debate. The Supreme Court later set aside that order, ruling that a high court could not bar a sitting judge from performing judicial functions while hearing a quo warranto petition.
Justice Jahangiri was also among six IHC judges who wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council last year, alleging interference by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs, a letter that sparked a broader debate on judicial independence.
