Jahangiri accuses IHC CJ of misconduct

Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has accused Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar of committing misconduct by saying that he was facing "immense pressure" for expeditious disposal of quo warranto petition against him. Justice Jahangiri had moved an application in the Islamabad High Court through lawyer Akram Sheikh, requesting to refer the case against his disqualification to the full court comprising all judges except the transferee judges, including CJ Dogar. "While the matter remained sub judice before the Honorable Chief Justice, he discussed the pending matter with the applicant, amongst others. The honorable chief justice during such discussions acknowledged that tremendous pressure had been brought to bear upon him to expeditiously adjudicate the case against the applicant," says the application. It is also revealed that CJ Dogar suggested, directly and indirectly, that if the applicant (Justice Jahangiri) tendered post-dated resignation and handed over the same to the chief justice for safe-keeping, it would enable the chief justice to satiate those pressurizing the chief justice and enable him to prorogue court proceedings. "[The] chief justice, by attempting to negotiate the outcome of a sub judice matter and making such outcome contingent on the applicant's resignation, has disqualified himself from sitting in an adjudicatory capacity in the instant matter. The Honorable Chief Justice must therefore recuse himself from hearing the case," says the application. It is contended that such conduct of chief justice is a clear violation of the code that bars any judge from discussing a sub judice matter with any party to the case. The chief justice, as a result of the pressure being exerted upon him, instead of abiding by the code, has opted to pressurise his fellow judge into tendering his resignation, it adds. Likewise, Justice Jahangiri also filed a complaint of misconduct against the IHC CJ in the Supreme Judicial Council. The judge also sought CJ Dogar's recusal on this ground. Justice Jahangiri, submitting the compliant of misconduct against the IHC CJ, alleged that he has not been truthful of tongue "since the order announced in court on 16.09.2025 was diametrically opposed and completely inconsistent with the one issued from the chamber in a duplicitous manner, despite assurances, in open court, that maintainability of the petition will be decided first and that the matter will be kept pending until the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council". Likewise, despite the Sindh High Court order dated 03.10.2025 clearly stating that the declaration of the University of Karachi stands suspended, the chief justice falsely stated on 02.12.2025 that the interim order is only restricted to further proceedings by the university. Similarly, it is further stated that the chief justice wrongfully marked attendance of the complainant's counsel on December 2, when he remained unrepresented as no notice had been issued to him until December 9. "Contrary to Article III of the Code, the Chief Justice's conduct has not been free from impropriety and the apparent bias in conduct." "He has not declined to act in a case involving his own interest" and where his opinion is swayed by personal advantage. The chief justice has an interest to penalise the complainant for challenging his transfer, seniority, appointment as chief justice and his subsequent actions as IHC chief justice, especially since if the complainant's challenge to the Chief Justice's seniority is successful, the Complainant will be senior to the Chief Justice." The complaint states that Justice Dogar has utilised the influence of his position as Chief Justice to fix the case before himself to gain undue advantage against a Judge who has dared to challenge his transfer and appointment: to ensure he can manipulate the proceedings and outcome of the quo warranto petition. He has, moreover, abused his position to fix the matter before a Division Bench without any basis for departing from the norm of such petitions being heard by Single Benches, to deny the Complainant one forum of appeal within the IHC. It is also stated that the chief justice failed to maintain harmony within his court and the "integrity of the institution of justice" due to his own conduct. The passing of the order dated 16.09.2025, restraining the Complainant from performing his judicial functions and even entertaining such petitions against colleagues seriously undermines harmony within the IHC. This runs contrary to the convention that judges exercise equal judicial power and are to maintain comity amongst themselves in discharge of their duties. The complaint further contended that Article 189 of the constitution makes decisions and orders of the Supreme Court binding upon all lower courts, including the IHC, and the Code mandates that judges act in accordance with the constitution, but the chief justice acted in violation of the Constitution. "Despite the Supreme Court stating in order dated 30.09.2025 that the objection/maintainability must be decided first, he proceeded to call for record of the Complainant's degree, which relates to merits of the case, before deciding the objection on a subsequent date." It is contended that the chief justice by discussing a sub judice matter with the applicant and admitting that he is under pressure to expeditiously: adjudicate the case against the Applicant; and negotiating outcome in a sub judice matter and rendering it conditional on the applicant's resignation has blatantly violated Article IV and XV of the Code. "The Respondent Chief Justice's conduct constitutes misconduct. The Respondent Chief Justice, through his conduct, has eroded the public confidence in the judiciary and refused to recuse himself from a case where he has a clear conflict of interest, despite the same being repeatedly pointed out. "The respondent chief justice has exercised his judicial power in an evidently biased manner and in violation of the Code," says the compliant of misconduct against IHC chief justice. An IHC division bench led by Justice Dogar has fixed Justice Jahangiri's applications for hearing today (Thursday). Justice Jahangiri also challenged the IHC interim order wherein quo warranto petition regarding his removal was declared as maintainable. The judge has hired services of three lawyers — Akram Sheikh, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed and Uzair Bhandari. Moreover, Justice Jahangiri moved the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday, seeking the setting aside of an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that declared a plea challenging the legitimacy of his law degree maintainable. He also sought the dismissal of the plea, which also calls into question the appointment of the IHC judge, "for being non-maintainable".