The Supreme Court of Pakistan has annulled an interim order issued by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that had barred Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing judicial duties. The apex court declared the IHC order, issued on September 16, 2025, as null and void, emphasizing that the high court must first address the maintainability of the writ before proceeding with further hearings.
Supreme Court Sets Aside IHC’s Directive
A five-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, accepted the appeal filed by Justice Jahangiri. The bench held that objections raised on the writ of quo warranto must be addressed before considering the petition on its merits. This decision effectively restores Justice Jahangiri’s authority to continue judicial work.
Only Supreme Judicial Council Can Act Against Sitting Judges
During the hearing, Justice Jahangiri’s counsel argued that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is authorized to initiate proceedings against a sitting judge. The bench noted that this principle aligns with earlier precedents, including the Malik Asad Ali case.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail further stated that the court has consistently held that removal of a judge falls solely within the SJC’s domain. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified that the apex court was not addressing the merits of the quo warranto petition but only ensuring proper procedure is followed.
Judges Not Considered Public Office Holders
Justice Mandokhail also pointed out that the high court petition claimed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts fall under the service of Pakistan. However, he observed that judges cannot be classified as public office holders. He added that such issues can be debated during ongoing proceedings in the high court once the maintainability question is resolved.
Attorney-General and Petitioner Support Lifting Interim Bar
The attorney-general maintained that a judge cannot be restrained from judicial work under an interim order. Petitioner Mian Dawood, when asked for his stance, agreed with the attorney-general’s position, acknowledging that judicial duties must not be suspended without due process.
Final Decision of the Apex Court
After hearing all parties, the constitutional bench unanimously annulled the IHC’s interim order. The court emphasized that this outcome was reached with the consent of all stakeholders.
In its written judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that since objections were raised on the high court petition, the IHC must first decide on those objections before moving forward with the quo warranto hearing. This ruling safeguards judicial independence and ensures adherence to constitutional procedure.
