•The bench of two judges refuses Justice Jahangiri to join the lawsuit
• Adhere to the courts that will first listen and determine the maintainability of the petition
•The petitioner and his lawyers walked out of court and protested on the stage
Karachi: The hot scene was witnessed in the Sindh High Court on Thursday as the two-term judges refused to entertain the guilty plea of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri of the Islamabad High Court, becoming a party to seven petitions, challenging Cancel his law degree.
However, the two judges, Constitutional Judges (CB), composed of Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, put aside the IHC application, inserting it first heard and determined the maintainability of the petition.
Justice Jahangiri, accompanied by IHC Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, defended for the right to hear, saying he was a wronged party and Karachi University (KU) did not issue him notice before canceling his degree.
However, the petitioner’s lawyers objected to the judge’s jurisdiction and urged the court to rule their objections first.
The proceedings attracted a large number of lawyers inside and outside the court, many chanting slogans and applauding, and later protested against a judge outside the SHC.
The petitioner and their lawyers also walked out of the court to protest that their objections were not resolved and the court refused to entertain Justice Jahangiri’s plea.
Some lawyers later claimed that the judge had dismissed the non-petition petition, although the written order is expected to be issued today (Friday).
The petitions were filed last year by various bar associations, lawyers and members of the KU group, the University’s Unfair Means Commission (UMC) and the Syndicate Cancel Justice Jahangiri’s degree.
Last September, the SHC suspended KU’s decision through a temporary order, limiting the university’s mandatory measures.
The court noted that the right to fair trial for every citizen was protected, but that it seemed offensive, illegal, and without authority, no hearing was provided to Judge Jahangiri before the degree was cancelled.
The petition has been fixed on Thursday’s hearing after the Sindh Higher Education Commission (SHEC) filed an emergency application for holidays with the temporary accommodation order.
Justice Jahangiri also appeared in court in person and filed an application for litigation. However, Justice Aga pointed out that the court will first examine the issue of maintainability.
Faisal Siddiqui, a senior attorney representing the petitioner, questioned how to decide the issue without listening to the victims.
Justice Jahangiri introduced himself on the podium and reiterated that as an affected party, he had a fundamental right.
Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed pointed out that Justice Memon is also part of the district table, who suspended KU’s cancellation order last September.
He added that the matter was initially fixed in front of another constitutional judge led by Judge Yousuf Ali Sayeed, but was later transferred to the current judge.
He believes the matter should be returned to CB-II because the transfer of the case is the area of the three judges’ committees and question how the constitutional seats cover the executive order. Advocate Siddiqui also argued that the case should be tried by a regular bench instead of a constitutional judge.
The petitioner’s lawyer further questioned the urgent application of the expert bank, believing that the committee itself had recognized that the committee had no role in this issue and should be removed as a defendant. They were surprised that the stock is currently seeking an emergency hearing.
Justice Jahangiri told the bench that he had been upholding his oath as a High Court judge to prove that his degree was true. He asserted: “I did not act as a puppet and did not make decisions as required by any department commander.”
The IHC judge recently banned the exercise of judicial powers from the bench of the IHC branch, asking the SHC to grant him the right to hear.
However, the petitioner and his attorney insisted on the bench that they would first decide on maintainability before leaving.
Later, barrister Ahmed asked the bench itself to express strong dissatisfaction with the transfer of the case, the manner of the hearing and the court’s refusal to hear the wronged judge.
“The Sindh High Court should remain a court, not become a ‘People’s High Court’,” he said in a sharp remark on the ruling PPP.
Posted in Dawn on September 26, 2025
