• Justice Jahangiri argues high court wrongly prioritised hearing on maintainability before recusal and jurisdiction questions
• Mustafa Khokhar challenges SC registrar’s decision to return his petition

ISLAMABAD: Justice Tariq Mah­mood Jahangiri of the Islamabad High Court challenged in the Supre­­me Court on Thursday the Sindh High Court’s Sept 25 order rejecting a set of petitions against the cancellation of his law degree over non-prosecution.

Filed through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi, the appeal contended that the SHC had erroneously held that the issue of maintainability had to be he­­a­rd first before any order was passed on the application for recusal or on qu­­estions regarding the jurisdiction of the SHC’s constitutional bench (CB).

The appeal named as respondents the Sindh chief secretary, HEC, SHEC, Karachi University, its Syndi­cate and the Unfair Me­­ans Committee, FIA, Pemra, anchor person Gharida Farooqi and the Govt Islamia Law College.

It contended that the SHC had erred in holding that the petitions fell within the domain of the CB based on the relief sought.

The appeal maintained that the SHC could not dismiss the petitions for non-prosecution without affording the petitioner time to engage counsel.

Mustafa Khokhar’s appeal

Meanwhile, Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz-i-Ayeen-i-Pakistan vice chairman Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar on Thursday filed a chamber appeal against the registrar office’s Sept 22 decision to return his petition.

The petition had sought a declaration that the Oct 31, 2024 decision of a committee under the 2023 Practice and Procedure Act — directing that challenges to the 26th Constitution Amendment be fixed before a full court consisting of all Supreme Court judges — was binding.

The appeal requested the Supreme Court to set aside the registrar office’s decision.

The appeal argued that the reasons cited by the registrar office for returning the petition were vague and misconceived and that there was no explanation as to how the prayers in the petition were multifarious.

The registrar office had stated that the petition was not entertainable as the petitioner had failed to point out any question of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights under the Constitution to justify invoking the Supreme Cour­t’s jurisdiction under Article 184(3).

It held that the petitioner was seeking redress for an individual grievance, which was not permissible under the 1998 Zulfiqar Mehdi case.

The appeal contended that the registrar office had no jurisdiction to determine the maintainability or entertainability of a petition under Article 184(3), as such questions could only be decided by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its judicial authority.

Published in Dawn, October 3rd, 2025