The Supreme Court suspended on Monday an order from the Superior Court of Islamabad that had restricted Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri of judicial work on an alleged false case.
The case was heard by a Constitutional Bank of five members headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan and who includes Judges Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shahid Bilal Hasan.
Judge Jahangiri appeared before the Apex court along with four judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC), Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Ejaz Ishaq and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, who entered the courts of the Court through the public entrance.
Outside the court, a journalist asked Jahangiri about the decision of the University of Karachi to cancel his lawyer. “I have already presented a petition in the Superior Court of Sindh,” he replied. “It is surprising that they cancel a title after 34 years. This has never happened in world history.”
The University of Karachi had previously declared the academic registration of Jahangiri “fictional”, after its unjust media committee (UMC) concluded that he had never been enrolled in Islamia Law College and got involved in bad practices during his LLB exams in the 1980 complains now before the Supreme Judicial Council.
Read: IHC judge hit a double blow
During the procedures, Judge Commandkhail commented that the matter before the bank was limited to the interim order of the IHC. “The meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council has already been scheduled for October 18,” he added.
Judge Shahid Bilal questioned how a written request against Jahangiri was counted despite the objections not resolved by the registrar’s office. “The SC has already ruled that a judge cannot be excluded from judicial work,” Judge Commandkhail observed.
The lawyer of Judge Jahangiri, Muneer A. Malik, argued that a judge cannot be avoided by judicial duties, while a complaint is pending before the SJC. “This is the first time in history that the Bank of a Superior Court has arrested one of its judges of judicial work,” he said. “The established law was ignored. The order did not meet the requirements of justice.”
Malik added that the request against his client was presented on July 10, 2024 and had been pending for more than a year with still unsolved objections.
Read more: 5 IHC judges challenge the powers of CJ in SC
“Despite that, an interim order was issued without listening to the other side,” he said. In addition, he noted that the same president of the Supreme Court of IHC had previously presided over a bank in cases of transfer of judges, which are still pending before SC.
The lawyer Mian Dawood, the petitioner, argued that the SC had previously banned Judge Sajad Ali Shah of judicial work. Judge Mazhar replied that the order in that case was approved in article 184 (3), pointing out: “The facts were completely different.”
Malik urged the court to suspend the Order of IHC to avoid sending “the incorrect signal.” He stressed that the ruling violated the precedent of the Malik Asad Ali case.
At the end of the hearing, after the consultations between the Judges Aminuddin and Commandkhail, the Apex court suspended the IHC order. Notices were issued to the Attorney General’s Office, Islamabad’s general lawyer and other parties. The matter was postponed until Tuesday.
Also read: Judges in the public tail
Previously, the challenges of Judge Jahangiri before the Super Court of Sindh were dismissed after his advice organized a strike, with the bank calling the behavior “very improper.” This left KU cancellation intact at the provincial level.
It can be remembered that on September 16, IHC CJ Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar led the bank that restricted Jahangiri of judicial work. This was the first time in the history of Pakistan that a superior court had prevented his own judge from listening to cases, an order of his lawyer called a blow to judicial independence.
The Islamabad Bar Association and the District Lawyers Association have also submitted applications to become parts of the case.
Judge Jahangiri has described the “political victimization” controversy, which links it with his role in the letter of the Judges of March 2024 about the surveillance of judges and with his work as judge of the electoral court whose decisions had bothered the candidates of the ruling party.
He insists that canceling a title after 34 years is not precedents around the world and a direct attack on judicial independence.
