Islamabad:
The Supreme Court suspended on Monday an order from the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) that had prohibited the judge of IHC Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri to carry out a judicial work. Subsequently, the IHC issued a new list of causes, restoring Jahangiri to single and division banks.
On September 16, a division bank led by the president of the Supreme Court of IHC, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz, had prevented Judge Jahangiri from performing his duties when he began the procedures in a request as quo order that he accused him of having a doubtful title of LLB.
On September 19, five IHC judges, including Judge Jhangiri, went to the Supreme Court in person to present separate constitutional requests, making eleven different sentences, including one that seeks the annulment of the IHC order that prohibits Jahangiri from judicial work.
However, on September 25, the University of Karachi canceled the judge’s title in the light of a previous decision of its union, which further complicated the situation.
On Monday, a Constitutional Bank (CB) of the SC, headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan and comprising Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Judge Shahid Bassan, considered the IHC order.
However, despite ensuring provisional relief of the Supreme Court, Judge Jahangiri can still face a path full of potholes until the controversy surrounding his degree of lawyer is resolved.
The CB is likely to decide today (Tuesday) if a superior court can restrict one of its judicial judges through a court order. There are few possibilities that the CB supports the IHC order that restricts Judge Jahangiri to perform judicial functions.
However, the position of the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) will be crucial in this matter. The CB generally gives a significant weight to the opinion of the AGP, particularly after the approval of the 26th constitutional amendment.
Superior lawyers expect different possible results from the bank.
After neglecting the intermediate order, the CB can refer the matter to the IHC to first decide the maintainability of the request of Quo Warranto presented against Judge Jahangiri.
The CB can also maintain that the complaint against the IHC judge is already pending before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which is scheduled to meet on October 18.
Alternatively, it may be recommended to decide the judicial order of quo against the judge of IHC. In that case, all records of pending litigation in the IHC and the Super Court of Sindh can be summoned for the final adjudication by the Apex court.
Some high -ranking lawyers believe that the presence of five IHC judges: Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, in the courtroom during this case is very alarming for the judicial trial. Now, all eyes are in the Supreme Court to see how it protects the independence of the Judiciary.
The lawyer Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar commented that Monday’s hearing was not about Judge Jahangiri but of the role of the Supreme Court in the safeguard of judicial independence.
“The appropriate forum to proceed against a judge of a superior court has been, and it will always be, the SJC. The unprecedented process adopted by the Dowar justice is equivalent to usurping the powers of the SJC and opens the door to future purges. Authoritarianism requires a complete presentation, and the story will not kindly seek those who choose to collaborate,” Khokhar added.
Hafiz’s defender Ahsan Ahmad Khokhar praised the provisional order of the CB, qualifying it expected and necessary, since restricting a judge in functions of judicial functions did not have a constitutional or legal basis.
“The suspension order reflects the role of the Supreme Court in the safeguarding of judicial independence and sends a clear sign that such measures cannot be sustained in the law.”
Khokhar emphasized that the only competent forum to examine the conduct or continuation of the Judge of the Superior Court in the position is the SJC under article 209, not a division bank or a complete bank of the same court. This principle ensures that judicial responsibility remains within its adequate constitutional framework.
He said that while administrative control can regulate the distribution of cases, restrict a judge of all judicial work is not an administrative act but a constitutional intervention, which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the SJC.
The IHC division bank, despite its best intentions, therefore, acted beyond its legal authority. The suspension of the Supreme Court of that order restores the appropriate balance between the constitutional forums.
Khokhar also pointed out that when issuing notices together with the suspension order, the Supreme Court has established a very necessary precedent: judges of the same court should not, in the future, pass by court order or restrictions on each other.
This, he emphasized, is vital for institutional height, credibility and discipline of the Judiciary. These issues must be resolved administratively or through the constitutionally obliged mechanism of the SJC, not through intra-court restriction measures.
