SC Annuls IHC Order Barring Justice Jahangiri

Introduction

In a significant development for Pakistan’s judiciary, the Supreme Court (SC) has annulled the Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that had restrained Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing judicial duties. The case has attracted nationwide attention as it touches upon the delicate balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence.

---

Background of the Case

The controversy began when a petitioner challenged the validity of Justice Jahangiri’s law degree, claiming irregularities in enrollment numbers and marksheets. The matter was referred to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for scrutiny. However, before the SJC could reach a conclusion, a two-member IHC bench issued an order barring Justice Jahangiri from carrying out judicial work.

This order immediately sparked debate within legal circles. Critics argued that such an interim restraining order was unprecedented and could set a dangerous precedent, effectively sidelining a sitting judge without due process.

---

Justice Jahangiri’s Appeal

Justice Jahangiri challenged the IHC’s decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that:

1. The IHC had no constitutional authority to bar a sitting judge from judicial duties.
2. Such an order, issued without hearing his side properly, violated principles of natural justice.
3. The move undermined judicial independence and amounted to an indirect removal from office without SJC’s verdict.

He requested the SC to suspend and ultimately set aside the IHC’s restraining order.

---

The Supreme Court’s Observations

A five-member larger bench of the SC heard the appeal and noted several critical points:

• Judicial Independence: Judges cannot be sidelined or prevented from exercising their duties merely on the basis of unproven allegations.
• Due Process: Any action against a judge must follow constitutional procedure, especially through the Supreme Judicial Council, which is the only forum authorized to examine judicial misconduct.
• Overstepping Authority: The IHC’s order appeared to exceed its jurisdiction, as restraining a judge from performing duties indirectly affects constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 209 and 211.

The bench stressed that allegations regarding a judge’s qualification or conduct must be thoroughly investigated, but until a final decision is reached by the SJC, judicial independence must remain protected.

---

SC Decision

After hearing arguments, the Supreme Court annulled the IHC order and restored Justice Jahangiri’s judicial powers. The apex court clarified that:

• Only the SJC has the authority to decide matters relating to the removal or restriction of judges.
• Interim measures by high courts that suspend a judge’s work are not legally sustainable.
• Protecting judicial independence is essential for the integrity of Pakistan’s legal system.

---

Reactions from Legal Community

The decision has been widely welcomed by bar councils and legal experts. Many lawyers described the IHC order as “hasty and unconstitutional,” while appreciating the SC for reaffirming the sanctity of due process.

Some observers, however, emphasized that accountability must not be compromised. They pointed out that while judicial independence is crucial, allegations such as questionable degrees or professional misconduct should still be thoroughly investigated to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

---

Broader Implications

This case carries far-reaching consequences:

1. Precedent Setting: The SC ruling establishes a precedent that judges cannot be restrained from work without SJC involvement.
2. Balance of Power: It reinforces the separation of powers by ensuring that no high court can indirectly suspend a judge.
3. Public Confidence: While the ruling safeguards judicial independence, it also reminds the judiciary of the importance of transparent accountability mechanisms.

---

Conclusion

The annulment of the IHC order against Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting judicial independence while maintaining the framework of accountability. The verdict not only restores a judge’s constitutional role but also sends a strong message that due process cannot be bypassed.

For Pakistan’s judiciary, this case is more than a dispute over one judge’s eligibility—it is a defining moment that sets boundaries for how allegations against judges should be handled in the future.