IHC Judge Appeals Supreme Court Against Ban on Judicial Duties
ISLAMABAD – Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging the restraining order issued on September 16 that barred him from performing his judicial functions. The restraining order was passed by a division bench of the IHC amid serious concerns raised over the authenticity of Justice Jahangiri’s law degree from Karachi University.
Filed personally by Justice Jahangiri, the appeal seeks the suspension and eventual setting aside of the September 16 order, which he argues is legally unsustainable. The appeal also urges the Supreme Court to direct the IHC division bench to halt further proceedings related to the matter until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict.
The division bench, comprising IHC Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, had issued the interim restraining order while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution by lawyer Mian Dawood. The petition invoked a writ of quo warranto, questioning the constitutional authority under which Justice Jahangiri was holding judicial office.
Justice Jahangiri Cites SC Ruling, Labels Order as Unconstitutional and Arbitrary
In his appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, Justice Jahangiri referenced the landmark 2010 Supreme Court judgment in the Iftikhar Chaudhry case. That ruling held that a judge cannot be restrained from exercising judicial functions during proceedings under Article 209, which outlines the mechanism for judicial accountability. Jahangiri argued that any such restraint—even temporary—is tantamount to removal from office and therefore unconstitutional.
The appeal criticizes the September 16 order as being mala fide and passed with a clear conflict of interest, calling it an egregious breach of judicial independence. It alleges that such an order sets a dangerous precedent, effectively allowing one bench of a high court to suspend the judicial functions of a fellow judge—undermining the collegial nature of the judiciary.
Justice Jahangiri contended that the order failed to meet the legal standards for issuing an injunction, which include establishing a prima facie case, proving irreparable harm, and maintaining a balance of convenience. The absence of these prerequisites, he argued, renders the order arbitrary and unjustified. Furthermore, he described the interim ruling as a “non-speaking order” lacking any discussion or legal reasoning behind its issuance.
According to the appeal, the restraint order not only contradicts settled legal principles but also violates the fundamental norms of comity among judges. Jahangiri emphasized that such intra-court actions, if left unchecked, could lead to judicial chaos and erosion of institutional respect among members of the bench.
