Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. Picture Courtesy: IHC
ISLAMABAD:
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri has accused Islamabad Excessive Courtroom Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar of committing misconduct by saying that he was going through “immense strain” for expeditious disposal of quo warranto petition towards him.
Justice Jahangiri had moved an utility within the Islamabad Excessive Courtroom by lawyer Akram Sheikh, requesting to refer the case towards his disqualification to the complete courtroom comprising all judges besides the transferee judges, together with CJ Dogar.
“Whereas the matter remained sub judice earlier than the Honorable Chief Justice, he mentioned the pending matter with the applicant, amongst others. The honorable chief justice throughout such discussions acknowledged that large strain had been delivered to bear upon him to expeditiously adjudicate the case towards the applicant,” says the appliance.
Additionally it is revealed that CJ Dogar recommended, immediately and not directly, that if the applicant (Justice Jahangiri) tendered post-dated resignation and handed over the identical to the chief justice for safe-keeping, it might allow the chief justice to satiate these pressurizing the chief justice and allow him to prorogue courtroom proceedings.
“[The] chief justice, by trying to barter the result of a sub judice matter and making such final result contingent on the applicant’s resignation, has disqualified himself from sitting in an adjudicatory capability within the on the spot matter. The Honorable Chief Justice should due to this fact recuse himself from listening to the case,” says the appliance.
It’s contended that such conduct of chief justice is a transparent violation of the code that bars any decide from discussing a sub judice matter with any social gathering to the case. The chief justice, on account of the strain being exerted upon him, as a substitute of abiding by the code, has opted to pressurise his fellow decide into tendering his resignation, it provides.
Likewise, Justice Jahangiri additionally filed a grievance of misconduct towards the IHC CJ within the Supreme Judicial Council. The decide additionally sought CJ Dogar’s recusal on this floor.
Justice Jahangiri, submitting the compliant of misconduct towards the IHC CJ, alleged that he has not been truthful of tongue “for the reason that order introduced in courtroom on 16.09.2025 was diametrically opposed and utterly inconsistent with the one issued from the chamber in a duplicitous method, regardless of assurances, in open courtroom, that maintainability of the petition might be determined first and that the matter might be saved pending till the choice of the Supreme Judicial Council”.
Likewise, regardless of the Sindh Excessive Courtroom order dated 03.10.2025 clearly stating that the declaration of the College of Karachi stands suspended, the chief justice falsely acknowledged on 02.12.2025 that the interim order is barely restricted to additional proceedings by the college.
Equally, it’s additional acknowledged that the chief justice wrongfully marked attendance of the complainant’s counsel on December 2, when he remained unrepresented as no discover had been issued to him till December 9. “Opposite to Article III of the Code, the Chief Justice’s conduct has not been free from impropriety and the obvious bias in conduct.”
“He has not declined to behave in a case involving his personal curiosity” and the place his opinion is swayed by private benefit. The chief justice has an curiosity to penalise the complainant for difficult his switch, seniority, appointment as chief justice and his subsequent actions as IHC chief justice, particularly since if the complainant’s problem to the Chief Justice’s seniority is profitable, the Complainant might be senior to the Chief Justice.”
The grievance states that Justice Dogar has utilised the affect of his place as Chief Justice to repair the case earlier than himself to achieve undue benefit towards a Choose who has dared to problem his switch and appointment: to make sure he can manipulate the proceedings and final result of the quo warranto petition.
He has, furthermore, abused his place to repair the matter earlier than a Division Bench with none foundation for departing from the norm of such petitions being heard by Single Benches, to disclaim the Complainant one discussion board of enchantment throughout the IHC.
Additionally it is acknowledged that the chief justice failed to take care of concord inside his courtroom and the “integrity of the establishment of justice” resulting from his personal conduct. The passing of the order dated 16.09.2025, restraining the Complainant from performing his judicial capabilities and even entertaining such petitions towards colleagues critically undermines concord throughout the IHC. This runs opposite to the conference that judges train equal judicial energy and are to take care of comity amongst themselves in discharge of their duties.
The grievance additional contended that Article 189 of the structure makes selections and orders of the Supreme Courtroom binding upon all decrease courts, together with the IHC, and the Code mandates that judges act in accordance with the structure, however the chief justice acted in violation of the Structure.
“Regardless of the Supreme Courtroom stating so as dated 30.09.2025 that the objection/maintainability should be determined first, he proceeded to name for document of the Complainant’s diploma, which pertains to deserves of the case, earlier than deciding the objection on a subsequent date.”
It’s contended that the chief justice by discussing a sub judice matter with the applicant and admitting that he’s underneath strain to expeditiously: adjudicate the case towards the Applicant; and negotiating final result in a sub judice matter and rendering it conditional on the applicant’s resignation has blatantly violated Article IV and XV of the Code.
“The Respondent Chief Justice’s conduct constitutes misconduct. The Respondent Chief Justice, by his conduct, has eroded the general public confidence within the judiciary and refused to recuse himself from a case the place he has a transparent battle of curiosity, regardless of the identical being repeatedly identified.
“The respondent chief justice has exercised his judicial energy in an evidently biased method and in violation of the Code,” says the compliant of misconduct towards IHC chief justice.
An IHC division bench led by Justice Dogar has mounted Justice Jahangiri’s functions for listening to right now (Thursday).
Justice Jahangiri additionally challenged the IHC interim order whereby quo warranto petition relating to his removing was declared as maintainable.
The decide has employed companies of three attorneys — Akram Sheikh, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed and Uzair Bhandari.
Furthermore, Justice Jahangiri moved the Federal Constitutional Courtroom (FCC) on Wednesday, searching for the setting apart of an Islamabad Excessive Courtroom (IHC) order that declared a plea difficult the legitimacy of his legislation diploma maintainable.
He additionally sought the dismissal of the plea, which additionally calls into query the appointment of the IHC decide, “for being non-maintainable”.
