Imagine this: In a jaw-dropping move that could reshape the judiciary, Islamabad's top court has just put one of its own judges under the spotlight, challenging the legitimacy of his law degree! This isn't just any courtroom drama—it's a legal showdown that raises big questions about who gets to question a judge's qualifications. Buckle up as we dive into the details of this intriguing case that has everyone talking. But here's where it gets controversial: Is the high court overstepping its bounds, or is it bravely upholding the integrity of the justice system?
On a recent Tuesday in Islamabad, the city's premier court, the Islamabad High Court (IHC), made a significant ruling. They deemed a petition admissible that disputes the genuineness of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri's undergraduate law degree. This decision came from a two-judge panel led by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and including Justice Muhammad Azam Khan. The court instructed the implicated judge and the other parties involved to submit their responses within just three days.
The petition, brought forward under Article 199 of the constitution by lawyer Advocate Mian Dawood, requests a writ of quo warranto. For those new to legal jargon, a writ of quo warranto is like a court's demand for someone to explain why they hold a public office or position—essentially asking, 'By what right do you serve?' In this instance, it targets Justice Jahangiri, urging him to defend his position amid claims that his LLB degree from the University of Karachi (KU) was earned through improper methods.
Throughout the proceedings, the District Bar Association's legal representative, Ahmed Hassan Shah, presented a strong counterargument. He emphasized that only the Islamabad Bar Council—the body responsible for licensing lawyers—has the authority to verify the validity of law degrees. Furthermore, he insisted that any accusations against judges must be handled solely through Article 209, which directs such matters to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). This council is the constitutionally appointed watchdog for judicial conduct. Shah went a step further, asserting that 'judges shouldn't be allowed to take action against their fellow judges,' highlighting a potential conflict of interest.
But here's the twist that most people miss: Chief Justice Dogar pointed out that this case isn't about professional misbehavior during judicial duties. Instead, it's focused on whether Justice Jahangiri met the basic requirements for appointment in the first place. The chief justice clarified that 'eligibility'—the qualifications needed to become a judge—is distinct from 'misconduct,' which Article 209 specifically addresses. Think of it like this: Misconduct is like breaking the rules while on the job, while eligibility is about whether you had the right credentials to get hired at all. This distinction could be a game-changer in how such cases are approached.
Backing this view, Raja Aleem Khan Abbasi, a member of the Islamabad Bar Council, echoed the importance of thoroughly checking academic backgrounds. He stressed that the petition brings up grave issues that demand attention, and he even referenced a related appeal currently pending before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). This appeal concerns the nominations of several IHC judges, including the chief justice himself, and it's been stirring up quite a bit of debate lately. Abbasi delicately suggested to the court that they might consider supporting Justice Jahangiri if he's facing undue pressure, calling it 'arm-twisting,' which adds a layer of intrigue to the proceedings.
To provide expert insight on the constitutional aspects, the court appointed Barrister Zafarullah Khan as amicus curiae—an impartial advisor to offer objective advice. He delivered a comprehensive breakdown of the laws surrounding writs against active judges. Drawing from past Supreme Court rulings, Khan explained that a quo warranto writ is indeed valid for examining a judge's suitability, since it deals with personal qualifications rather than their day-to-day judicial work. He pointed out that Article 199(5), which typically blocks writs against the Supreme Court or high courts, doesn't apply when a judge is being scrutinized in their individual capacity.
Khan reinforced this by noting that courts have repeatedly affirmed the ability to review superior court judges' appointments if there's doubt about meeting constitutional standards at the time of selection. He argued that the SJC's role, outlined in Article 209, is narrow—it only covers misconduct or inability to perform duties—not the initial qualifications, which he believes fall squarely under the high court's jurisdiction via quo warranto actions. This interpretation subtly challenges the status quo and invites debate: Should judges really be immune from such personal inquiries, or does this open the door to potential abuses?
Adding more evidence to the mix, Advocate General Islamabad Ayaz Shaukat shared excerpts from KU's internal investigation report. Meanwhile, an earlier assessment by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) had essentially endorsed KU's conclusions. Abbasi also reminded the bench that the Sindh High Court (SHC) had temporarily halted KU's decision to revoke the degree. However, Chief Justice Dogar clarified that this pause doesn't mean the degree is fully reinstated—it just delays the process.
This case isn't just a legal footnote; it's a spotlight on the delicate balance of power within Pakistan's judiciary. On one hand, ensuring judges are qualified protects the public's trust in justice. On the other, questioning a sitting judge could undermine the independence of the courts and create a chilling effect. What do you think—does the IHC have the right to probe its own? Or is this a step toward accountability that we desperately need? Should judges be held to the same standards as everyone else, or does their position demand special protections? Share your thoughts in the comments below—do you side with the court's decision, or does it make you uneasy? Let's discuss!
Published in Dawn, December 10th, 2025
