Bench issued notices to judge, other respondents, sought written replies within three days
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. Photo Courtesy: IHC
ISLAMABAD:
At the upcoming hearing of a petition accusing Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri of holding an invalid law degree, the judge is likely to appear in person before a division bench that on Tuesday sought a reply from him.
According to source, Justice Jahangiri will come to the IHC’s Courtroom-1 where Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan will resume proceedings on Mian Dawood Advocate’s quo warranto petition tomorrow (Monday).
Last week, on December 9, the bench had declared the petition maintainable. It had also issued notices to the judge and other respondents and sought written replies in three days.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Islamabad Advocate General Ayaz Shaukat told the bench that according to a report submitted by the University of Karachi (KU), the Islamia Law College, an affiliated institute of the KU, had declared Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri “an unknown individual”.
The petitioner, Mian Dawood Advocate, argued that under Article 193 of the Constitution, a high court judge must be an advocate.
He said Justice Jahangiri did not even qualify to become a lawyer, let alone a judge. He added that whether the allegation is true or false, the burden now lies on Justice Jahangiri to prove that his degree is genuine.
Counsel representing Islamabad Bar Association, Advocate Ahmed Hasan, argued that the petitioner — Mian Dawood — is not an aggrieved party.
He stated that to become a high court judge, ten years of legal practice is mandatory, and issuing a license for legal practice falls under the jurisdiction of the relevant bar council.
“If there is any flaw in the degree or eligibility for legal practice, the matter should be taken to the bar council, not the court.”
He further warned that if one high court judge begins legal proceedings against another judge, it would damage the judicial system.
He added that after legal practice, Justice Jahangiri was appointed as a judge by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), and the matter should be placed before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as a high court cannot conduct fact-finding in such cases.
Member of the Islamabad Bar Council, Raja Aleem Abbasi, argued that matters relating to judges must be handled by the JCP, whereas matters relating to advocacy fall under the bar council.
He also objected to CJ Dogar sitting on the bench, stating that since a petition against Dogar’s transfer to the IHC — filed by Justice Jahangiri — is pending before the Federal Constitutional Court, he should not hear this case.
Abbasi requested the court to transfer the case to another bench.
Court-assigned amicus curiae, Barrister Zafarullah Khan, also presented arguments on the maintainability of the writ of quo warranto.
The chief justice remarked that the university was categorically stating that Justice Jahangiri was never a student of the Islamia Law College.
The bench later issued notices to Justice Jahangiri, the federal government through the Ministry of Law, the president through his principal secretary, the JCP secretary, and the Parliamentary Committee on Judges’ Appointment, directing all respondents to submit their replies within 3 days.
Earlier, the KU submitted its report that stated that Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri was found guilty in 1989 by the Unfair Means Committee of cheating in the LLB Part-I examination and of issuing threats to the examiner, resulting in a three-year ban.
Although he became eligible to reappear in exams in 1992, he allegedly used a fake 1990 enrolment form bearing a forged Government Islamia Law College stamp to obtain his degree, changing names and enrolment numbers multiple times to acquire mark sheets and the degree.
