Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, definitively declared “null and void” an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that had barred Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing judicial duties. This ruling comes just a day after the apex court had initially suspended the IHC’s September 16 decision, effectively restoring Justice Jahangiri to his judicial functions.
The IHC’s interim order, issued on September 16, 2025, had restrained Justice Jahangiri from exercising his judicial powers while a two-judge bench heard a legal challenge concerning the validity of his law degree. Justice Jahangiri subsequently challenged this restraining order in the Supreme Court, seeking its immediate annulment.
During Tuesday’s hearing, a five-member Constitutional Bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, took up Justice Jahangiri’s petition. Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the court, stating unequivocally, “A judge cannot be barred from judicial work through an interim order.” Mian Daud, the petitioner who had originally filed the case against Justice Jahangiri in the IHC, concurred with this view, adding that “an order barring a judge from their duties cannot be defended.”
Acknowledging these arguments, Justice Aminuddin set aside the IHC order, ruling that a judge cannot be stopped from carrying out judicial duties by an interim directive. The Supreme Court also instructed the IHC to first address the procedural objections raised by the Supreme Court registrar’s office regarding the original petition against Justice Jahangiri.
The bench clarified that its decision focused strictly on the interim restraining order. The judges explicitly stated they were not ruling on the validity of Justice Jahangiri’s degree or the broader question of whether a High Court could entertain such a petition against a sitting judge. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail reiterated that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the constitutional body responsible for judicial accountability, has the authority to remove a judge. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added, “The only question before us is whether a judge can be prevented from working through an interim order,” emphasizing that the bench would not address the maintainability of a writ petition against a judge at this stage.
The controversy surrounding Justice Jahangiri’s law degree first emerged in 2024 when a letter, purportedly from the University of Karachi’s examinations controller, began circulating on social media. The letter indicated discrepancies in enrollment numbers for his 1991 LLB degree, terming it “invalid” rather than “bogus,” as university rules stipulate only one enrollment number per degree program. This led to a public campaign against the judge, which the IHC itself had condemned as “contempt of court” in July 2024.
In September 2024, the University of Karachi’s Syndicate cancelled Justice Jahangiri’s degree. However, the Sindh High Court (SHC) suspended this cancellation just days later, noting that the university had acted without affording Justice Jahangiri an opportunity to defend himself. Related proceedings continue in the SHC, where Justice Jahangiri has challenged the university’s decision to revoke his degree. The SHC is set to hear his petition, even as another two-judge SHC bench had recently declined his plea to become a party in separate proceedings challenging the degree cancellation.
