‘Fake degree’ case: Justice Jahangiri moves FCC against IHC order

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court judge, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, approached the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) requesting it to set aside the IHC order declaring the plea challenging his law degree maintainable.

A Division Bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, on December 9, held Mian Dawood’s Quo Warranto writ maintainable and issued notice to the judge (Justice Jahangiri) to file his reply within three days.

Justice Jahangiri on Wednesday filed a petition before the FCC under Article 175F (1) (c) of the Constitution and cited Mian Dawood, Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, President of Pakistan, Secretary Judicial Commission of Pakistan, Parliamentary Committee, Higher Education Commission, and Karachi University as the respondents. The IHC judge filed the petition through Uzair Karamat Bhandari.

Division bench led by CJ Dogar: IHC turns down judge Jahangiri’s objections

He also applied to the Islamabad High Court, saying that, in light of the public importance of questions relating to judicial appointments and court functioning, the Full Court hear his case, and sought the recusal of IHC Justice Dogar and other judges whose transfers were challenged.

In his petition before the FCC, Justice Jahangiri questioned, “Whether a Quo Warranto petition is maintainable against a sitting judge of a superior court when the grounds for challenge are purely factual, which cannot be adjudicated upon without recording of evidence!”

Mian Dawood has filed the Quo Warranto challenging the appointment of Justice Jahangiri as the judge of the IHC, as he allegedly holds an invalid LLB Degree, and; therefore, he is not qualified to hold the office of the IHC judge.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order is unconstitutional, unlawful, and liable to be set aside as it is violative of his fundamental rights under, inter alia, Article 10-A of the Constitution.

The IHC judge stated that the impugned order has finally determined the question of maintainability of the writ petition, adding that the issue has been decided once and for all, behind his back and without hearing him.

Justice Jahangiri also argued that the writ petition raises factual issues regarding the validity of his LLB degree, which cannot be decided without the recording of evidence. He said it is settled law that factual disputes cannot be decided by a High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, adding the validity of the LLB degree can only be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction after a full trial involving recording of evidence.

He submitted that the Karachi University report filed before the IHC pursuant to its order dated December 2, relying on that the notice was issued to him, does not mention the proceedings before the Sindh High Court or the SHC stay order. Therefore, it can only be regarded as a deliberate act of concealment.

The petitioner vehemently denied the allegations against him in Karachi University’s decisions, which cannot be established without a full-fledged trial. He stated that the events related to his degree spanned over three decades. Such exercise cannot be conducted within the confines of Article 199 (1) (b) (ii) of the Constitution.

He stated that in Quo Warranto proceedings, the only issues which directly relate to, and immediately precede, the appointment in question that can be looked into are whether he was eligible to be a judge of the High Court under Article 193 of the Constitution.

Justice Jahangiri contended that the impugned order gives him only three days to file his reply, even though the matter pertains to events that are over three decades old and he has not been provided with copies of the relevant record.

The petition mentioned that the writ petition challenging his appointment on the ground of an allegedly invalid law degree was taken up and proceeded with under the administrative and judicial authority of Chief Justice Dogar, even though the chief justice’s own transfer and appointment to the IHC had earlier been challenged by the applicant and “remains subjudice before the Federal Constitutional Court”.

It further states that Chief Justice Dogar “not only fixed the matter before a bench headed by himself” but also passed restraining and procedural orders “in haste”, creating “an appearance of bias”.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025