The Apex Court called the IHC’s Order of stopping Justice Jahangiri from Judicial Work ‘Null and Void’

ISLAMABAD: On Tuesday, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court declared the Islamabad High Court’s decision to suspend the judicial work of Justice Jahangiri ‘null and void.’ The SC opposes the IHC’s order in order to maintain the law and order situation. 

The SC heard Jahangiri’s petition:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) passed an order on September 16. As per the order, Justice Jahangiri was forbidden to perform his judicial work until the case against him was resolved.

The case revolves around his LLB degree. The proceedings on the case are continued. However, the IHC has barred Jahangiri from doing his judicial work.

Today, the court resumed the hearing. The five-member constitutional bench took the petition of Justice Jahangiri. Jahangiri filed a petition to resume his judicial work. To respond to the petition, the SC’s five-member constitutional bench heard the petition.

On 29 September, the court issued notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan, Mansoor Usman Awan, and all the respondents to appear in the 30th  September hearing.

CB opposes IHC’s order:

The Constitutional bench (CB) that heard Jahangiri’s petition includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan. Justice Aminuddin Khan heads the Constitutional bench. 

The Attorney General of Pakistan appeared in today’s hearing. While asking him about his opinion on barring Justice Jahangiri’s role in Judicial work, he said, “A judge cannot be barred from judicial work through an interim order.”

Justice Aminuddin then asked Daud, a respondent who had originally filed a petition against Jahangir. Daud also opined the same view as AJP. He said, “I hold the same opinion. A judge cannot be stopped from judicial work. An order barring a judge from their duties can not be defended.”

While hearing these responses, Justice Aminuddin suspended the IHC’s order barring Jahangiri from pursuing his judicial work. He said that a judge should never be halted in continuing his judicial work even when the court proceeding against him is continued.

The Constitutional Bench, however, made it clear earlier that today’s hearing is solely concerned with the continuation of Justice Jahangiri’s duties. He had cleared that SC will not discuss his main case concerning a fraudulent LLB degree.

Upon the maintainability of the writ petition, Jahangiri’s legal counsel, Munir Malik, said that only the SJC has the authority to take action against Jahangiri. He said, “According to yesterday’s court order, it was written that the writ is maintainable, but in my opinion, only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) can take action against a judge.”

Justice Mandokhel said, “We have only maintained that a judge may only be removed by the SJC.” Justice Mazhar also stressed that we are here only to discuss whether a judge can be barred from performing his duties. He said, “We are not touching on the question of the maintainability of the writ of quo warranto. Whether it merited a hearing in a high court is up to the relevant high court to decide. The only question before us is whether a judge can be prevented from working through an interim order. We will not address the question of whether a writ petition can be filed against a judge.”

Justice Mandokhail also said, “Both the Supreme Court and High Court judges are not office holders. All of these things can be discussed when the case is heard on merit. We do not want to go on merit in the present case.”

The SC’s Constitutional bench, though, suspended the IHC’s order and allowed Justice Jahangiri to continue his judicial duties.