ISLAMABAD: Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has also challenged the Sept 16 restraining order that barred him from performing judicial functions after a division bench raised serious questions about the validity of his law degree from Karachi University.

Filed by Justice Jahangiri in person, the appeal before the Supreme Court pleaded for the Sept 16 restraining order to be set aside and suspended during the pendency of the petition, and for the division bench to be directed to hold back from proceeding further.

The two-judge IHC bench, headed by Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar alongside Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, had issued the interim order while hearing a writ petition filed by lawyer Mian Dawood under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition sought a writ of quo warranto, questioning “by what authority” Justice Jahangiri held judicial office.

In his appeal under Article 185(3), Justice Jahangiri cited the 2010 Iftikhar Chaudhry case, in which the SC had held that the Constitution did not permit any restraint on the exercise of judicial powers by a judge or any limitation on him during proceedings envisaged by Article 209. The ruling also held that even a temporary disability placed on a judge in the discharge of constitutional and official obligations amounts to removal from office and is therefore not permissible under the Constitution.

The Sept 16 order, the appeal argued, was patently mala fide in its conception and contrary to what transpired in open court. It added that the restraining order was passed in a palpable conflict of interest, opening the door to an egregious encroachment on judicial independence, allowing a larger bench of the high court to restrain fellow judges from performing their judicial functions.

The appeal stressed that although interference in interlocutory matters is an exception to the general rule, an exception arises when an order is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to settled principles of law.

In such cases, he argued, the Supreme Court is bound to intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is a settled principle that no injunction may be granted without the three prerequisites of a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience being satisfied.

However, the Sept 16 order, which the appeal described as a non-speaking order, contains no discussion of these indispensable elements, thereby lacking legal foundation. It argued that the order overturns the convention that the court is a collegiate body of judges, each exercising equal judicial power, who are required to discharge their duties in a manner that upholds comity among them.

Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2025