• Justice Jahangiri requests Federal Constitutional Court to set aside high court decision to hear case over his law degree
• Formal complaint before SJC says CJ admitted there was ‘tremendous pressure’ on him
ISLAMABAD: While accusing Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar of ‘bias’ against him, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has requested the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) to set aside the recent IHC decision to hear a petition challenging the authenticity of his law degree, and filed a formal complaint before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against the chief justice.
In his plea moved through senior counsel Uzair Karamat Bhandari, Justice Jahangiri requested the FCC to set aside the Dec 9 order that had declared maintainable a petition calling upon him to justify the authority under which he holds a high court office in the wake of allegations that his LLB degree from Karachi University (KU) was obtained through unfair means.
The FCC was told that CJ Dogar was biased against Justice Jahangiri and therefore disqualified from hearing any matter relating to his appointment. Justice Jahangiri recalled in the petition that he had already challenged Justice Dogar’s transfer to the IHC, followed by his elevation as IHC CJ and in these circumstances judicial propriety required that the IHC chief justice should not preside over proceedings concerning the writ of quo warranto.
Justice Jahangiri said Justice Khalid Hussain Soomro had recused himself from the case on Oct 28, and maintained that the IHC chief justice ought to have followed the same course. Instead, the chief justice not only fixed the petition before himself while heading a division bench on Sept 16, but also passed an interim restraining order barring Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial functions, though that order was later set aside by the Supreme Court.
The petition recalled that while setting aside the restraining order, the SC had directed the IHC division bench to first decide the office objections raised against the petition pending before the high court and only thereafter proceed to hear the matter. However, according to Justice Jahangiri, the IHC division bench went on to decide the issue of maintainability without issuing notice to him or affording him an opportunity of being heard.
“This was not only a clear violation of the SC directions, but also a grave procedural impropriety, as the petitioner was given no notice on the question of maintainability and only three days to submit a reply on the merits,” the petition argued.
Complaint before SJC
Separately, Justice Jahangiri also filed a formal complaint against his boss, IHC CJ Dogar, before the SJC under Article 209 of the Constitution, accusing him of misconduct, bias, and violation of the Code of Conduct for Judges in relation to proceedings concerning the legitimacy of his degree and appointment.
According to the complaint, while the matter was sub judice, the IHC chief justice discussed the pending case with Justice Jahangiri and advised him, both directly and indirectly, to resign from office. Justice Jahangiri asserted that such conduct alone disqualified Justice Dogar from hearing the case.
The complaint alleged that during these discussions, the chief justice acknowledged that “tremendous pressure” was being exerted on him to decide the matter expeditiously and against Justice Jahangiri. It was claimed that Justice Dogar suggested that if he were to submit a post-dated resignation and hand it over to him for ‘safe-keeping’, it would help placate those exerting pressure and allow proceedings to be delayed.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2025
