IHC dismisses Justice Tariq Jahangiri’s objections in degree controversy case

WEB DESK: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has rejected both objections raised by Justice Tariq Jahangiri in the ongoing degree controversy case, ordering the Registrar of Karachi University to present the original LL.B. degree record on December 18.

The court issued a detailed written order, stating that Justice Jahangiri’s claims of bias against the Chief Justice lack any legal basis. His objections to the composition of the bench, challenging Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar’s participation and the formation of a two-member division bench for the hearing, were also dismissed. Additionally, the court rejected his request to make the Islamabad District Bar Association a party to the case.

The written order was issued following a hearing on a petition filed by advocate Mian Dawood. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Azam Khan, explained that the formation of a two-member bench was in line with administrative discretion, given the sensitivity of the case involving serious allegations against a sitting high court judge. The bench noted that such arrangements for handling sensitive matters are not unprecedented.

The court emphasized that Justice Jahangiri’s claims of bias against the Chief Justice have no legal foundation. It also pointed out that intra-court appeals against the transfer of judges, including Justice Jahangiri, had previously been rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court, and that the principle of recusal based on alleged bias is well-established in superior court rulings from 1966 to 2023. No legal justification was provided to substantiate the objection against the Chief Justice.

The IHC further directed Justice Tariq Jahangiri to submit his petition along with all relevant documents and to provide verified copies of responses from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the university. The court has scheduled the next appearance for the presentation of the original LL.B. record on December 18.

This ruling underscores the court’s stance that procedural objections and claims of bias must meet strict legal standards, particularly in high-profile cases involving allegations against sitting judges.