- Web Desk
- 10 Minutes ago
Degree Vs decree: IHC suspends Justice Jahangiri from judicial duties
-
- Web Desk Farah Mehjabeen
- Sep 16, 2025
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has suspended Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri from judicial work pending a decision by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding allegations related to his educational credentials.
The suspension comes through a written order issued by a division bench of the IHC, comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan. The order was passed during today’s hearing on a petition filed by Mian Dawood, which calls for Justice Jahangiri’s removal on the grounds of possessing a fake degree.
Also read: Justice Sattar issues scathing letter against IHC chief justice Sarfraz Dogar
The court also appointed senior lawyers Barrister Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Ali Ausaf as judicial assistants in the case. The Attorney General was also present at the hearing and was asked to assist the court on the admissibility of the petition.
The newly issued duty roster of the IHC no longer includes Justice Jahangiri. His assignments on both the division bench and single bench have been terminated, effectively removing him from any ongoing judicial responsibilities.
The petition seeking Justice Jahangiri’s removal was scheduled for a hearing today before the same division bench. The case originally came before the court last year and was last heard by then-chief justice Aamer Farooq, who had reserved his decision on July 11, 2024, regarding the maintainability of the petition. However, the reserved verdict was never announced, leading to a re-hearing under the current IHC administration.
Also read: SC debates legality of super tax on provident funds
Moreover, last year in September, the Sindh High Court (SHC) has suspended Karachi University’s (KU) decision to revoke the law degree of Justice Jahangiri. The ruling said that the university’s syndicate had taken the action in Justice Jahangiri’s absence depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself. The court called it a “violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution” (the right to a fair trial).
