Islamabad (Web Desk): The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday removed Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from his judicial post over questions surrounding his law degree.
A division bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice (CJ) Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, announced the ruling after considering a petition that challenged both the authenticity of Justice Jahangiri’s legal qualifications and the validity of his appointment.
The court directed Justice Jahangiri to immediately relinquish his position, citing that he had possessed “an invalid law degree at the time of his appointment and confirmation as a judge.”
In addition, the bench directed the law ministry to formally withdraw his notification as a member of the judiciary.
The IHC also disposed of all related petitions. Justice Jahangiri had reportedly left the court about half an hour before the verdict was delivered.
The controversy surrounding Justice Jahangiri’s credentials dates back to last year, when a letter allegedly issued by the University of Karachi’s controller of examinations began circulating on social media.
In July, a formal complaint challenging his degree was submitted to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the apex body responsible for investigating judicial misconduct.
In his petition filed just a day prior to the verdict, Justice Jahangiri argued that the IHC order was issued “without affording him an opportunity of hearing, while individuals who were not parties to the case were heard on the question of maintainability.”
He claimed that this amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to due process under Article 10A of the Constitution.
The petition contended that the writ before the IHC challenged his appointment on the basis of an allegedly “invalid LLB degree,” a matter involving “disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated by a high court without recording evidence.”
Justice Jahangiri maintained that such factual disputes fall within the jurisdiction of a trial court and that “the high court lacks authority to record evidence in quo warranto proceedings.”
He further argued that the IHC, while deeming the writ maintainable, relied on a report submitted by the University of Karachi “without examining its validity or allowing Justice Jahangiri to contest it.”
The petition highlighted that proceedings related to his degree—including actions by the university’s Unfair Means Committee, the Syndicate, and subsequent declarations—“are already under challenge before the Sindh High Court, where those proceedings have been suspended.”
Justice Jahangiri emphasized that the alleged irregularities pertain to examinations held decades ago and that the accusations “are purely factual in nature, requiring a full trial.”
He denied the allegations, asserting that “his credentials have remained on record throughout his legal career, including during his enrolment as an advocate and subsequent judicial appointments.”
Through the petition, filed by Advocate Uzair Bhandari, Justice Jahangiri sought leave to appeal, conversion of the petition into an appeal, setting aside of the IHC’s December 9 order, and dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of non-maintainability.
Earlier this year, lawyer Mian Dawood had also approached the IHC, challenging Justice Jahangiri’s appointment.
The case has followed a long legal trajectory. On September 16, the same IHC division bench first heard the petition and issued an interim order restraining Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial duties until the maintainability of the petition could be examined.
The order, issued without prior notice to the judge, sparked debate within the legal community over whether a high court could suspend a sitting judge.
On September 29, the Supreme Court intervened and set aside the restraining order. A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, clarified that a high court cannot bar a judge from exercising judicial functions while hearing a quo warranto petition.
The Supreme Court noted that its ruling addressed only the legality of the interim order and not the merits of the allegations, directing the IHC to resolve all preliminary objections and proceed according to law.