IHC rejects ex-judge's allegation

Says accusation against CJ Dogar aimed at creating a hostile judicial environment

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed sacked judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri's allegation that Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar attempted to negotiate with him for a post-dated resignation, terming the claim baseless and without evidence.

In a detailed 116-page judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, the court categorically rejected the accusation and defended the institutional integrity of the judiciary.

The ruling stated that the allegation that the IHC CJ attempted to negotiate a post-dated resignation is hereby categorically rejected as baseless, scandalous, and far from the truth.

The assertions appear to be a strategic attempt to create a hostile judicial environment and obstruct the proceedings regarding the applicant/respondent No. 1's own qualifications.

Such grave and inexcusable allegations against the head of an institution, without a shred of evidence brought before the court, strike at the dignity of the court, independence of the judiciary and do not constitute a valid ground for recusal.

The development follows a December ruling by a division bench led by IHC CJ Dogar, which accepted a quo warranto petition and declared that Jahangiri's LLB degree was invalid at the time of his appointment.

The detailed judgement rejecting Jahangiri's objections observed that the pendency of the matter before the Sindh High Court (SHC) does not bar the Islamabad High Court from deciding the writ of quo warranto.

The court further held that judicial independence does not equate to remaining in office at all costs, but rather lies in enforcing constitutional standards upon itself.

"By removing a person whose appointment was contrary to the prevalent law and the Constitution itself, the judiciary is cleansing itself, thereby strengthening its independence and credibility. On the other hand, ignoring such a fundamental flaw would send a message of double standards, that Judges are somehow above the rules that apply to everyone else. Such a perception would severely erode public confidence, which is important for maintaining and safeguarding the judiciary's independence."

The judgment also addressed concerns raised regarding inter-judge comity and collegial harmony. The court acknowledged that judges are generally reluctant to entertain proceedings against their peers except in exceptional circumstances. However, it clarified that such considerations are matters of prudence rather than binding legal principles.

The court said that it is argued that allowing one high court judge to sit in judgment over another could erode collegial harmony and would damage the judicial system.