ISLAMABAD: Justice Tariq Mah­mood Jahangiri was visibly relieved when the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Tuesday overturned the Sept 16 interim order issued by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) barring him from performing his judicial work.

While setting aside the restraining order, the five-judge bench also recorded its expectation in the order that whenever the controversy regarding validity of LLB degree of the judge will be taken up again, the high court will first settle the objections raised by the high court registrar office to the petition.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, senior puisne judge, was of the opinion that senior judges like CJP Yahya Afr­idi and the head of the Constitutional Bench should visit the IHC, sit with the judges and settle the problems, the high court was grappling with.

He brushed also aside an impression that the five IHC judges had for­med some kind of union, exp­l­aining that they were fighting for their rig­hts as it was a question of principle.

Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the constitutional bench disposed of the appeal of Justice Jahangiri when Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan conceded that the present matter was the case of first impression where a quo-warranto writ had been moved against a sitting judge and that the 1988 Malik Asad Ali case was clear in its findings where it held that a judge cannot be restr­ained from performing his judicial function through an interim order.

When asked, Advocate Mian Daw­ood, who initially moved the writ of quo-warranto before the IHC, told the constitutional bench via video link from Lahore that after going through Malik Asad’s case last night, he too concluded that the Sept 16 res­training order was not defendable.

Justice Jahangiri was represented by senior counsel Munir A. Malik before the constitutional bench comprising Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shahid Bilal Hassan in the challenge to the IHC restraining order.

As usual, Tuesday’s hearing in the packed Courtroom No. 4 was atte­n­ded by five IHC judges — Justice Ka­­yani, Justice Jahangiri, Justice Ba­­bar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Raffat Im­­tiaz. The judges as a matter of routi­­ne entered the SC premises as ordinary litigants through the general reception area rather than using the entry reserved for judges and lawyers.

During the hearing, Jus­tice Mandokhail observed, it was a settled principle that judges could only be removed from their offices by the President on the recommendation of the Sup­r­e­­me Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209. He reca­l­­led how the high court in its order had mentioned that judges were within the service of Pakistan when neither they were public servants nor come under the service of Pakistan.

But Justice Mazhar int­e­rjected to explain that the constitutional bench would not touch upon the maintainability of the quo-warranto writ pending before the high court against the judge and reminded that objections raised by the office against the writ petition still existed.

He made it clear that the constitutional bench was not seized with the original writ petition rather the only question before it was to determine whether a judge could be restrained through the interim order or not. He then wondered how the high court could pass the restraining order without even issuing notices to the respondents.

While dictating the order, Justice Khan mentioned that the petitioner did not even appear before the high court at the time when the restraining order was issued against Justice Jahangiri.

Notices issued

Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court issued notices to the cabinet division, Karachi University and other respondents on a plea of Justice Jahangiri against the cancellation of his law degree.

A two-judge SHC bench comprising Justice Muh­ammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Justice Mohammad Abdur Rahman also put the additional attorney general and advocate general Sindh on notice for Oct 3.

Representing the petitioner, Barrister Salahud­din Ahmed submitted that matter pending before the SC was about an order of the IHC restraining the petitioner from discharging judicial functions.

Citing various SC rulings, the counsel asserted that varsities could not cancel degrees without issuing notices to the persons concerned and the KU had no authority to cancel the degree of petitioner and the impugned actions of varsity’s syndicate and UMC were based on mala fide intentions.

After a preliminary hea­ring, the bench said that it was issuing notices to the respondents as well as federal and provincial law officers concerned to file comments and adjourned the proceedings.

Ishaq Tanoli in Karachi also contributed to this report

Published in Dawn, October 1st, 2025