ISLAMABAD: The capital’s top court on Tuesday declared a petition challenging the authenticity of the law degree of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri as maintainable, directing the judge and other respondents to file their replies within three days.
A division bench of Islamabad High Court (IHC) comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan announced the order after examining arguments on whether the petition — filed under Article 199 by Advocate Mian Dawood — could proceed.
The petition seeks a writ of quo warranto requiring Justice Jahangiri to justify the authority under which he holds office, in light of allegations that his LLB degree from the University of Karachi (KU) was obtained through unfair means.
During the hearing, District Bar Association counsel Ahmed Hassan Shah argued that only the Islamabad Bar Council, which issues licences to practicing lawyers, had the authority to examine the authenticity of a law degree. He maintained that allegations involving judges must be addressed exclusively under Article 209 before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
He contended that the SJC is the constitutionally designated forum for complaints concerning judges and asserted that “judges cannot proceed against one another”.
However, CJ Dogar observed that the present matter did not relate to judicial misconduct, but rather to the judge’s qualification at the time of appointment. The chief justice noted that eligibility was a separate issue and did not fall within the definition of “misconduct” under Article 209.
IBC member Raja Aleem Khan Abbasi supported the position of District Bar Association that academic qualifications required proper scrutiny He added that the case raised serious concerns that could not be ignored.
Mr Abbasi also pointed out that an intra-court appeal was pending before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) concerning the appointment of certain IHC judges, including the chief justice, a matter that had generated controversy recently. Referring to the sensitivity of the matter, he remarked, “your lordship may help him if a judge is being arm-twisted.”
Amicus curiae Barrister Zafarullah Khan, appointed to provide constitutional clarity, submitted a detailed analysis of the legal framework governing writs against sitting judges.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, he stated that a writ of quo warranto was maintainable in matters relating to the eligibility of judges, as it concerned personal qualifications rather than judicial functions.
He stressed that Article 199(5), which bars writs against the SC, a high court, or certain tribunals, did not prevent proceedings against a judge in his personal capacity.
He noted that courts have consistently held that the appointment of a superior court judge can be scrutinised if questions arise regarding failure to meet constitutional requirements at the time of appointment. He argued the SJC’s mandate under Article 209 was limited to examining misconduct or incapacity and did not extend to assessing initial eligibility, which falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court through quo warranto proceedings.
Advocate General Islamabad Ayaz Shaukat read out parts of KU’s inquiry report.
The Higher Education Commission, in an earlier report, had given tacit approval to KU’s findings. Mr Abbasi reminded the court that the SHC had suspended KU’s notification cancelling the degree. CJ Dogar, however, noted that the suspension did not amount to restoration of the degree.
Published in Dawn, December 10th, 2025
