The Supreme Court (SC) announced on Tuesday the September 16 decision of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) requiring that the judicial work of law firms “ineffective and invalid” on the day after the Apex Court order was suspended.
Yesterday, the court postponed the hearing until September 30 (today) and issued a notice to all respondents and to the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) men’s ears to appear in the court.
On September 16, the IHC restricted Justice Jahangiri’s judicial powers from exercising his judicial powers as the judges of the two judges issued an interim order while hearing written petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution. Justice Jahangiri then challenged the decision in SC, demanding that the restriction order be left aside.
The matter centers on letters that began circulating on social media last year, allegedly the controller of Karachi University’s examination, about the law of judges.gree.
Today’s hearing was deceived by Justice Jation Jathangiri’s Petition by Justice Judge Aminuddin Khan and including Justice Judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Sahid Sahid Bilal Hassan, who deceived Justice Jation Jathangiri.
AGP Awan appeared in the court and said: “Judges cannot prohibit judicial work by temporary orders.”
To this end, Justice Aminodin asked the defendant Mian Daud that his opinion was the original petition against Judge Jahangiri. In response, Daud said: “I hold the same opinion – the judge cannot stop the judicial work.”
He added: “The order prohibiting judges from performing their duties cannot be defended.” Justice Amidin pointed out the statement of the AGP and the statements of other relevant parties, revoking the IHC order and ruled that the judges could not prevent them from performing their judicial duties.
In referring to the office objection of the SC registrar to the petition of IHC Judge Jahangiri, CB directed the court to “firstly decide to write the objection in the petition”.
At the hearing, when Judge Jahangiri Munir Malik spoke to the court and said: “The court order yesterday would have an accounting, but I think, I think I think taking action against the judge.”
At yesterday’s hearing, the CB made it clear that it would only review the 16th September restriction order, rather than the main petition to Judge Jahangiri’s doubts.
He added: “No one should accept the impression that we accept the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the writ petition.” To this end, Justice Amidin replied: “We wrote the language in the case of Malik Assad Ali in order.”
“We only insist that only judges can be removed from office by SJC,” Judge Mandock Hale said in his speech.
Judge Mazar asserted: “We did not talk about the maintenance of the Quo Warranto writ. Whether it is worth a hearing in the High Court, which is decided by the relevant High Court.
“The only question before us is whether it is possible to prevent the judge from working through interim orders,” he said, stressing that at present, “the CB will not be able to resolve the issue of whether a writ petition can be filed with the judge.”
Justice Mandockhull observed: “Neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court judges were office holders, but then continued: “All these things can be discussed when the case is heard in the case. “
“We don’t want to have the advantages in this case,” he said.
Monday, SC pause The IHC issued an order that prohibits Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial duties in cases related to his legal degree.
Available copies according to court order dawn.comthe judge ruled that “the operation of the ordered ruled was suspended.”
Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court (SHC) is set to Hear Judge Jahangiri’s petition today challenged the cancellation of his law degree.
Justice Jahangiri undermined the decision of the Unfairness Commission of the University of Karachi (UMC) and the group, which canceled his degree last August.
The IHC judge recently contacted the SHC, but at the time of filing, the court’s additional registrar (written) raised several objections, including questions about the maintainability of the petition and the delay in filing the filing.
Fake degree dispute
The controversy began last year with a letter sent on social media, allegedly based on KU’s exams, about the validity of Jahangiri’s law degree, leading to subsequent ones. Register SJC reference.
The letter was reportedly a response from KU to the application, which was under the Sindh Transparency Information Act, 2016’s Right to Information.
It is noted that candidate Tariq Mehmood received his LLB degree in 1991, with a degree of 5968. However, Imtiaz Ahmed was admitted in 1987 with the same and ROLMENT numbers, while LLB Part I transcripts were issued under the name Tariq Jahangiri.
In addition, Tariq Mehmood enrolled the first part of the LLB under the enrollment in 7124. The letter did not declare the degree forged, but called it invalid, explaining that the university issued an enrollment rate throughout the graduate program, which made it impossible for students to have two and courses.
July 10, 2024, IHC rule The “shocking movement” aimed at the detriment of the judges attempted to put the “court into hatred, ridicule and disrespect” and ostensibly qualify to see it as contempt of the court. ”
With the degree charge, Daud filed a writ petition asking the court to block Judge Jahangiri’s exercise of judicial power until his LLB degree is verified. IHC CJ AAAMER FAROOQ at that time Hear A petition filed by a lawyer.
At that time, the SC Registrar’s office also raised objections to the petition on the grounds that Daud was not a wronged person, and the matter was pending before the SJC.
On September 1, 2024, KU Group Cancel University officials said Justice Jahangiri’s degree and enrollment rate were based on recommendations from his UFM committee.
The decision comes after several hours of detaining academic and group member Riaz Ahmed picked up In police, it appears that he was trying to stop him from attending the critical meeting. He was released at night only after Syndicate decided to cancel his degree.
Then, on September 5, 2024, SHC pause After a petition against KU’s cancellation, KU decided to revoke Jahangiri’s law degree. The court ruled that the university’s joint organization took a lawsuit over the absence of Jahangiri, depriving him of his opportunity to defend himself.
To do this, KU answer The Unfair Means Committee and the Group consider that there is sufficient evidence to oppose the judge and that it is appropriate not to listen to his voice in person.
On September 16, the IHC accepted the matter, led by IHC CJ Dogar and led by Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, banning Justice Jahangiri from engaging in judicial work until SHC’s ruling on his alleged fake degree, which was appealed by Justice Jahangiri in SC.
On September 25, the SHC bench of the two judges reject Justice Jahangiri became a party in petition lawsuits, challenging the cancellation of his legal degree.
