Islamabad:
When challenging last year’s decision of the University of Karachi to revoke his lawyer after 32 years, the judge of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri told the Superior Court of Sindh (SHC) that he faces compensation of powerful members of the Executive for exercising judicial autonomy.
On August 31, 2024, the union of the University of Karachi annulled this degree of “invalid” Jahangiri justice about the recommendations of the unjust committee of the University (UFM). However, the SHC on September 5, 2024 suspended the decision of the university.
However, last week, on September 16, an IHC division bank comprising the president of Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Judge Muhammad Azam Khan prevented Judge Judge Jahangiri from doing his duties, since he took a petition accusing the judge of having a dubious degree.
The judge challenged the decision in the Supreme Court, whose Constitutional Bank of five members (CB) led by Judge Aminuddin Khan and Judge Jamal Khan Commandkheil, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Judge Shahid Waheed heard the case on September 29.
Judge Jahangiri has now presented a petition in the SHC, stating that the general context in which the illegal and bad relief of its LLB title has taken place is the unwavering judicial independence that it has demonstrated.
“Two outstanding examples stand out,” says the petition. “First, the petitioner is one of the six signatories of the letter dated 25.03.2024, written by the judges of the Honorable IHC, in which the federal government agencies gave detailed examples of interference and surveillance.
“This was such an unprecedented and shameless attack against the independence of the Judiciary that the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan instituted Suo Motu Case No 1 of 2024 to analyze this invasion and subversion of judicial independence, approved several orders and the matter is still sub trial.
“Secondly, the petitioner was one of the judges appointed as an electoral court for the territory of Islamabad, and his appointment was rigorous and constant by the winning candidates of the ruling party, which led to the transfer of cases of the electoral courts.”
Judge Jahangiri argues that his judicial actions and procedures, affirming independence against executive interference by the federal government and his agencies, created the specific context within which the illegal and bad faith cancellation of his LLB title has taken place.
The petition establishes that, to penalize the petitioner judge for affirming judicial independence, two measures were initiated. First, there was a “mysterious” complaint dated July 4, 2024 before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), claiming that the degree of Petitioner LLB was false and forged and that, therefore, it should be eliminated from the judicial position.
“Secondly, a smear campaign was launched in the media with respect to the controversy surrounding the title of LLB of the petitioner.” Later, a new strategy was adopted through misuse of bad Fidely and illegally the processes and institutions of the University of Karachi.
“The first step in this strategy of activating the University of Karachi against the petitioner was the meeting of the UFM committee, held on August 17, 2024 at the exam controller office.
“The decision of the UFM Committee is shocking and surprising for the following reasons. First of all, there is nothing in the contested decision of UFM that reveals why the case of the LLB title of the petitioner was obtained after 32 years of its issuance.
“This decision outside the blue with respect to a acting judge of the Superior Court, taken by an executive agency of a university after decades, stinks of bad fides.
“Secondly, no notice was issued to the petitioner to respond to the accusations made against its Title of LLB, which is a serious violation of the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, taking into account that this issue is related to a judge of a superior court, it is surprising that it was taken by an Executive Committee of the University of Karachi and decided within a unique meeting.
“In summary, the bad fides are floating in the Registry. Fourth, under Regulation 14 (IX) of the realization of exam regulations, issued under the law of the University of Karachi, 1972, the Moan Committee of Unjust (which issued the contested decision of UFM) must be appointed by the Union of No. 1.
“The union has never appointed an UFM committee and, consequently, the contested decision of UFM is clearly without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is obvious and evident that the contested decision of UFM has no jurisdiction, illegal, bad trust and part of the campaign mentioned above to subvert the judicial independence of the petition and the IHC.”
It also requests the SHC to allow them to document the details of the efforts made to influence the result of judicial decisions during the course of procedures and provide a personal affidavit in support.
The petitioner requests that the SHC declare that the minutes of the 653A Meeting of the Union of August 31, 2024 of the University of Karachi are unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, illegal and bad Trust, and are set aside.
It is also alleged that the decision of the UFM committee dated August 17, 2024 is unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, illegal and bad Trust, and must also be reserved.
“As a consequence, suspend the operation of Agenda No. 6 of the 653A Meeting of the Union of 31.08.2024 of defendant No. 1 and the decision of the unfair committee of means dated on 17.08.2024 (except paragraph 3 of the decision), or any other similar decision/acts, and declares that any adverse or coercive decision or the action against the petition They would not be the decision.
The petition also requests a declaration that these actions are of bad Trust in the law and, in fact, and are also prohibited by limitation.
SC lists Jahangiri’s request for September 29
The Supreme Court has now listed the request of Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri for September 29 against the IHC order that restricts it from judicial work.
It is not clear if Jahangiri justice will appear or involve the Council in this matter. The Islamabad Lawyer Council has also challenged IHC’s trial against him.
However, questions about the composition of the CB are asking. The lawyers point out that, under amendment 26, there must be representation of each province in constitutional banks.
However, no judge belonging to the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has been included in the case of the Judge Banking Judge Judge, despite the fact that 15 judges have been nominated for constitutional banks. Interestingly, Judge Ishtiaq Ibrahim has not yet been included in any constitutional bank.
The lawyers urge the committee responsible for Banco’s training to give the same chance to all judges to listen to important cases. Previously, criticism had also been addressed to the main judges to include judges “of related ideas” in banks that listen to high profile cases.
A representative of the Lawyer Association of the Supreme Court (SCBA) told Express PAkGazette that he had urged a committee member to form different banks to judge issues related to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution. He wondered why only a constitutional bank worked at the same time.
