Justice Jahangiri moves FCC against IHC order declaring plea challenging his law degree maintainable

Justice Tariq Mehmood 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”.

The plea, filed by lawyer Mian Dawood, was declared maintainable by a division bench, led by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, on December 9.

Justice Jahangiri filed a petition against the order in the FCC on Wednesday, in which he has nominated Dawood, the Federation of Pakistan, president of Pakistan, Judicial Commission of Pakistan, parliamentary committee on judges’ appointment to superior courts, Higher Education Commission, University of Karachi (KU) and a lawyer named Siraj Ahmad as respondents.

He contended that the IHC order on maintaibility of the case, a September 16 order that barred him from judicial work and the “unnecessary haste with which the division bench is proceeding” against him, “make it clear that the bench, in particular the honourable chief justice of the Islamabad High Court, is biased against” him.

The petition, a copy of which is available with Dawn, recalled that on the conclusion of the case’s hearing on December 2, the proceedings were adjourned until December 9.

It said until then, no notice had been issued to Justice Jahangiri by the IHC, and as such, neither did he appear before the court on December 2 nor was he represented.

“Nevertheless, the order dated December 2 erroneously records the attendance of ‘Mr Aleem Khan Abbasi and Mr Riasat Ali Azad, advocates for respondent no.1’(the petitioner),” it added.

Justice Jahangiri’s petition highlighted that the plea challenging his degree was declared maintainable, among other grounds, on the basis that his “eligibility” and not his “conduct” as the high court judge had been challenged.

Referring to a KU report submitted to the IHC, the petition contended that it failed to disclose a declaration by the university of the withdrawal and cancellation of the judge’s degree on September 25 stood suspended following an October 3 Sindh High Court order.

It termed the IHC order declaring the plea challenging Justice Jahangiri’s law degree “unconstitutional, unlawful and liable to be set aside”.

It was pointed out in Justice Jahangiri’s petition that the IHC division issued its order on the maintainability of the plea before issuing a notice to him. Moreover, while several parties, including those “who have not been impleaded as parties” in the plea were heard on the issue of maintainability, but Justice Jahangiri was not.

“This amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s (Justice Jahangiri) fundamental right to due process and fair trial as enshrined under Article 10-A of the Constitution.”

It was also highlighted in Justice Jahangiri’s petition that the IHC order had not been made subject to his right to question the maintainability of the plea challenging his qualification.

“This issue has been decided once and for all, behind the petitioner’s back and without hearing him.

“The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this count alone,” the petition stated.

It added that the plea challenging the judge’s qualification raised factual questions about his degree’s validity. The petition contended that a high court could not decide such “factual disputes” in exercise of its constitutional jurisdictions and that they were to be decided by “a court of competent jurisdiction after a full trial involving the recording of evidence”.

The controversy surrounding Justice Jahangiri’s law degree originated from a letter that began circulating last year on social media, purportedly from the University of Karachi’s (KU) controller of examinations.

Subsequently, a complaint pertaining to his allegedly fake degree was submitted to the Supreme Judicial Council — the top forum for judicial accountability that probes allegations of misconduct against judges — last year in July and a petition challenging his appointment was also filed in the IHC earlier this year by lawyer Mian Dawood.

The controversy has followed a protracted legal trajectory since Sept 16, when the same IHC division bench first took up the petition and issued an interim order restraining Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial functions until the maintainability of the petition could be decided.

The decision, made without issuing prior notice to the judge, had sparked debate within the legal community over whether a high court could suspend a sitting judge through an interim order. On Sept 29, the SC intervened, setting aside the restraining order.

A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, held that a high court could not bar a judge from performing judicial functions while hearing a quo warranto petition.

The ruling clarified that it addressed only the legality of the interim order and not the merits of the allegations. The SC later directed the IHC to decide all preliminary objections and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Justice Jahangiri was also one of the six IHC judges who wrote to the SJC last year, alleging interference in judicial affairs by intelligence agencies. The letter sparked a wider debate on judicial independence and led to demands for an inquiry.