Islamabad: Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has also challenged the restriction order of September 16 that prevented him from performing judicial functions after a bank of the division raised serious questions about the validity of his title of lawyer of the University of Karachi.
Filed by Judge Jahangiri in person, the appeal before the Supreme Court begged that the September 16 restriction order was reserved and suspended during the processing of the petition, and that the Bank of the Division is indicated to stop to continue.
The IHC Bank of Dos Judges, headed by the president of the Supreme Court Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dragar together with Judge Mohammad Azam Khan, had issued the provisional order while listening to a deed request presented by lawyer Mian Dawood under article 199 of the Constitution. The petition requested a court order, questioning “why authority”, Judge Jahangiri had a judicial position.
In his appeal under article 185 (3), Judge Jahangiri cited the Iftikhar Chaudhry case of 2010, in which the SC had argued that the Constitution did not allow any restriction on the exercise of judicial powers by a judge or any limitation on the procedures provided by article 209. Permissible under the Constitution.
The order of September 16, argued the appeal, was evidently bad in its conception and contrary to what happened in the open court. He added that the restriction order was approved in a palpable conflict of interest, opening the door to an atrocious invasion of judicial independence, allowing a larger bank of the Superior Court to prevent the judges from performing their judicial functions.
The appeal emphasized that, although interference in interlocutory matters is an exception to the general rule, an exception arises when an order is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the established principles of law.
In such cases, he argued, the Supreme Court is obliged to intervene to avoid the spontaneous abortion of justice. It is an established principle that cannot be granted a court order without the three previous requirements of a prima facie case, an irreparable loss and a satisfied convenience balance.
However, the Order of September 16, which the appeal described as an unlisted order, does not contain discussion of these indispensable elements, so they lack a legal basis. He argued that the order annuls the convention that the Court is a university body of judges, each who exercises the same Judicial Power, which must fulfill their duties in a way that the community maintains among them.
Posted in Dawn, September 20, 2025
