ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday declared maintainable a petition challenging the academic credentials of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and sought his response within three days, paving the way for a judicial examination of whether he lawfully holds office as a high court judge.
The petition, filed by lawyer Mian Daud, questions the authenticity of Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree and seeks a judicial determination on his eligibility to serve as an IHC judge. The court had earlier reserved its ruling on the plea’s maintainability in July last year.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan announced the decision after hearing arguments from representatives of bar associations and the amicus curiae.
During the proceedings, Ahmed Hassan Shah, representing the District Bar Association, argued that the matter should be referred to the Islamabad Bar Council (IBC) — the authority responsible for issuing licences to lawyers. He maintained that questions pertaining to a judge’s alleged misconduct fall squarely under Article 209 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to investigate such matters.
CJ Dogar, however, noted that the case revolved around the eligibility of a judge, not misconduct, distinguishing it from the domain of the SJC. Still, Shah insisted that Article 209 was the appropriate constitutional route, arguing that Article 199 — under which the petition has been filed — should not be invoked where Article 209 could prevail. He further contended that “judges cannot proceed against one another” and that the high court could not exercise its Article 199 jurisdiction in overlapping or “competing circumstances”.
Presenting the IBC’s stance, Aleem Abbasi acknowledged that Article 209 covered a wide range of issues but said a “new trend” appeared to be emerging in judicial qualification disputes. He noted that Justice Jahangiri held three separate licences, which he argued raised questions that must be addressed by the appropriate authority. Abbasi also reminded the bench that an intra-court appeal related to the issue was already pending — seemingly referring to a case before the Federal Constitutional Court filed by five IHC judges, including Justice Jahangiri. He added that even the appointment of one of the judges hearing the present matter had previously come under scrutiny. “Your lordship may help him if a judge is being arm-twisted,” he remarked.
Amicus curiae Barrister Zafarullah Khan also questioned the plea’s maintainability and raised constitutional queries about whether the proceedings should fall under Article 199 or Article 209. Stressing that the issue touched upon the “integrity of a judge”, he pointed out that sub-clause 5 of Article 199 excludes courts from its scope, while sub-clause 3 excludes the armed forces. He further reminded the bench that the Supreme Court, too, had previously examined aspects of the matter.
At this, CJ Dogar observed that the Supreme Court had expressly directed the IHC to proceed with hearing the petition. He further noted that a writ of quo warranto — a legal action questioning “by what authority” a public office is held — could indeed be issued against a sitting judge if warranted.
The case now moves to its next phase, with the court awaiting Justice Jahangiri’s formal response within the stipulated three days.
