Says allegation against CJ Dogar aims to create hostile judicial environment
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed dismissed judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s allegation that Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar attempted to negotiate a post-dated resignation with him, calling the claim baseless and without evidence.
In a detailed 116-page judgment written by Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, the court categorically rejected the allegation and upheld the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
The ruling stated that the allegation that the IHC Supreme Court attempted to negotiate a post-dated resignation is categorically rejected as baseless, scandalous and far from the truth.
The assertions appear to be a strategic attempt to create a hostile judicial environment and obstruct proceedings relating to Applicant/Respondent No. 1’s own qualifications.
Such serious and inexcusable accusations against the director of an institution, without the slightest evidence presented to the court, violate the dignity of the court and the independence of the judiciary and do not constitute a valid reason for recusal.
The development follows a December ruling by a division bench headed by IHC CJ Dogar, which accepted a quo warranto petition and declared that Jahangiri’s LLB degree was invalid at the time of his appointment.
The detailed judgment rejecting Jahangiri’s objections observed that the pendency of the matter before the Sindh High Court (SHC) does not prevent the Islamabad High Court from deciding the order of quo warranto.
The court further held that judicial independence is not equivalent to remaining in office at all costs, but rather consists of imposing constitutional norms on oneself.
“By removing a person whose appointment was contrary to the current law and the Constitution itself, the judiciary is being cleansed, thereby strengthening its independence and credibility. On the other hand, ignoring such a fundamental flaw would send a message of double standards, that judges are somehow above the rules that apply to everyone else. Such a perception would seriously erode public trust, which is important to maintain and safeguard the independence of the judiciary.”
The ruling also addressed concerns raised regarding courtesy between judges and collegial harmony. The court recognized that judges are generally reluctant to consider proceedings against their peers except in exceptional circumstances. However, he clarified that such considerations are matters of prudence rather than binding legal principles.
The court said it is argued that allowing one high court judge to try another could erode collegial harmony and harm the judicial system.
