Islamabad:
The judge of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has transferred a request in the Supreme Court that seeks an early hearing of its constitutional request against an IHC order that prevents it from hearing cases. He has asked the Apex court to listen to the petition this week, between September 23 and 26.
On September 16, an IHC division bank comprising the president of the Supreme Court Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Judge Muhammad Azam Khan prevented Judge Jahangiri from performing his duties, since he took a petition accusing the judge of having a doubtful degree of LLB.
Interestingly, the bank also sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan about the question of whether the petition was maintained while appointing the lawyers of lawyers Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Ali Ausaf as Amici Curiae.
The Bank said that until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the Responsibility Forum, which has also been addressed against Judge Jahangiri, decides the matter, the judge could not handle cases.
On September 19, five IHC judges went to the SC in person to present separate constitutional requests, making eleven different sentences, including one that seeks annulment of the IHC order, except Judge Jahangiri of judicial work.
In his request submitted on September 22, Judge Jahangiri declared that it was a position established in the law that a restriction order could not be approved to prevent a judge from the Superior Court from doing his work.
He said the case referred to important law issues related to the functional judge of the Superior Court and the independence of the Judiciary, which were of great concern for any jurisdiction.
“The order of September 16 opens the gates to the litigation where any pending reference, complaint or petition against any judge may allow a superior court to prevent its function from doing.
“Therefore, an urgent intervention of this court is required to correct the course and prevent such actions from feeling the performance of the judges of the Superior Court.” He said the order was approved without considering the good faith of the person, Mian Daud, defender, who presented a request against him.
In the absence of such good faith, he said, the request presented against him was not even maintainable. Therefore, this determination must be made at the beginning to close the door to any poor trusteization litigation initiated against constitutional officials.
“The crucial decision to prevent a judge from performing his function was taken without even hearing the counterpoint position. The petitioner was never heard.
“Therefore, it is imperative that the objections to the maintainability of the petition presented against the petitioner are considered at the beginning, to prevent the litigation unnecessarily from the petitioner dispensing justice in the superior court in which it serves.”
The judge said he could only serve as a judge of the Superior Court until a particular age, and the lost time due to the operation of the contested order could not be recovered by him.
