Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri appeared before the Islamabad High Court (IHC)
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri appeared before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday, where he presented arguments in his defence against petitions questioning the authenticity of his law degree and the legality of his appointment as a judge. He also objected to the competence of the division bench hearing the matter.
The dispute regarding Justice Jahangiri’s academic credentials arose after a letter, allegedly issued by the University of Karachi’s controller of examinations, began circulating on social media last year. Following this, a complaint accusing him of possessing a forged degree was filed before the Supreme Judicial Council in July last year. Separately, lawyer Mian Dawood challenged his appointment through a petition filed in the IHC earlier this year.
A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the case on Monday amid a crowded courtroom. The same bench had previously declared Dawood’s petition maintainable during the December 9 hearing, delivering a verdict that had been reserved since July last year. Earlier, in September, the bench had restrained Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial duties, an order that was later overturned by the Supreme Court.
During his arguments, Justice Jahangiri raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the division bench was not competent to hear the case because a separate petition challenging the appointment of its members was pending. This was widely seen as a reference to challenges against Chief Justice Dogar’s elevation.
“We have already filed a petition against you.
Addressing the allegations about his degree, he maintained that the entire case was based on an academic record dating back 34 years. He offered to swear on the Holy Quran that his degree was authentic and emphasised that the University of Karachi had never officially declared it fake.
Justice Jahangiri also criticised the speed of the proceedings, arguing that issuing a three-day notice to respond to such an old matter was unreasonable. At the previous hearing, the bench had given him three days to reply to the material gathered so far. Due to limited time, the notice was delivered to his chamber through the registrar’s office, and court staff subsequently placed it before him.
He further objected to the earlier order restraining him from judicial work, calling it unprecedented. “Such an action has never occurred in the judicial history of Pakistan or India. Not even a patwari has been stopped from working in this manner,” he remarked.
Seeking more time, Justice Jahangiri requested an adjournment to appoint legal counsel and obtain the complete case record. “Very little time has been given. I need to engage a lawyer and prepare my defence,” he said.
In contrast, petitioner Mian Dawood urged the court to conduct daily hearings.
The bench adjourned the proceedings until December 18, directing the registrar of the University of Karachi to appear in person and produce the relevant academic record. Justice Jahangiri was also granted time until then to hire a lawyer.
Chief Justice Dogar assured Justice Jahangiri that he would be afforded a fair hearing. Throughout the proceedings, he repeatedly asked the large number of lawyers present to remain seated, stressing that the court wished to hear Justice Jahangiri without interruption.
Lengthy legal course
The issue surrounding Justice Jahangiri’s law degree has followed a long legal path since September 16, when the same division bench initially entertained the petition and issued an interim order barring him from judicial duties until the question of maintainability was resolved.
That order, passed without prior notice to the judge, triggered widespread debate in legal circles over whether a high court had the authority to suspend a sitting judge through an interim measure. On September 29, the Supreme Court set aside the restraining order.
A five-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan ruled that a high court could not prevent a judge from performing judicial functions while adjudicating a quo warranto petition. The Supreme Court clarified that its decision addressed only the legality of the interim restraint and did not touch upon the substance of the allegations. It subsequently directed the IHC to decide all preliminary objections and continue the proceedings in accordance with the law.
