ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Islamabad High Court’s order that had barred Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri from judicial functions due to an alleged fake degree case.
A day ago, a five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had suspended the operation of the IHC interim order, which had barred Justice Jahangiri from judicial work.
The Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) and even the respondent No.1 Mian Dawood did not defend the 16th September order of a Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court, headed by Chief Justice IHC Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar.
AGP Usman Mansoor Awan, responding to a bench query, said, “A judge cannot be barred from judicial work through an interim order.” Upon that, Justice Aminuddin Khan, who was heading the Constitutional Bench (CB), asked Mian Dawood, who appeared through video-link, for his opinion. Dawood stated: “I hold the same opinion — a judge cannot be stopped from judicial work,” adding, “an order barring a judge from their duties cannot be defended.”
Justice Amin, noting statements of the Attorney General and Mian Dawood, the relevant parties, set aside
the IHC order, ruling that a judge cannot be stopped from carrying out judicial duties.
The Constitutional Bench, while referring to the SC registrar’s office objections regarding the petition against Justice Jahangiri in the IHC, directed the IHC that in the quo warranto petition, the IHC must first decide on the objections before proceeding further.”
At the outset of the proceeding, Munir A Malik, representing Justice Jahangiri, told the bench that he did not argue yesterday that the writ of quo warranto is maintainable against the judge of the superior court, as mentioned in the SC order dated 29-09-2025. The counsel stated that he had submitted that “no interim order restraining Justice Jahangiri from
judicial work can be passed.”
The counsel, while referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Asad Malik case, stated: “No one should be under the impression that we have accepted the high court’s jurisdiction to hear the writ petition.”
To that, Justice Aminuddin said: “We have written in the order only the language that is present in the Malik Asad Ali case.” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said, “We have only maintained that a judge may only be removed by the SJC.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said, “We are not touching on the question of the maintainability of the writ of quo warranto. Whether it merited a hearing in a high court is up to the relevant high court to decide.”
“The only question before us is whether a judge can be prevented from working through an interim order,” he said, stressing that at the moment, the Constitutional Bench “will not address the question of whether a writ petition can be filed against a judge.”
Justice Mandokhail observed that in a writ of quo warranto, the person mentioned is the “public office holder”, while the judges of superior courts are not the public office holders as per Article 260 of the Constitution. However, he said, “all of these things can be discussed when the case is heard on merit.” “We do not want to go on merit in the present case.”
After the proceedings, when Justice Jahangiri was coming out of the Court, a journalist questioned whether he would start hearing in the IHC. He replied “yes”.
After being reinstated, Justice Jahangiri resumed court duties and reached his courtroom. He started hearing cases again following the Supreme Court’s decision to restore him to his position.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.