IHC to Hear Eligibility Challenge Against Justice Jahangiri

High Court to Examine Rare Quo Warranto Petition Against Sitting Judge

Introduction

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to hear a highly unusual and sensitive constitutional petition that challenges the eligibility of a sitting high court judge. This development has triggered a nationwide legal debate on judicial immunity, constitutional safeguards, and the limits of quo warranto jurisdiction in Pakistan.

For decades, quo warranto petitions have been used to question the legality of elected representatives and executive office-holders. However, the current case marks a rare moment in Pakistan’s legal history where this powerful constitutional tool is being directed towards the judiciary itself.

The case involves Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, a serving judge of the Islamabad High Court, whose eligibility has been challenged on the grounds of an allegedly invalid academic degree. The proceedings are expected to have long-term implications for judicial independence and constitutional interpretation.

What Is a Quo Warranto Petition?

A writ of quo warranto is a legal mechanism used to challenge whether a person holding a public office is legally qualified to do so. Literally meaning “by what authority”, it allows courts to examine the eligibility, appointment, or qualifications of an office-holder.

In Pakistan, quo warranto has historically been used against:

• Members of the National Assembly
• Senators
• Prime Ministers
• Heads of accountability bodies
• Senior bureaucrats

Its use against a sitting high court judge, however, is extremely rare and constitutionally sensitive.

Background of the Justice Jahangiri Case

The petition has been filed by Mian Daud, who alleges that Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri holds an invalid degree, which could affect his eligibility under Article 193 of the Constitution.

A division bench of the Islamabad High Court, headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, is scheduled to hear the matter. Last week, the court declared the petition maintainable and issued a notice to Justice Jahangiri.

It is expected that Justice Jahangiri himself will appear before the bench, making the proceedings unprecedented in nature.

Why This Case Is Constitutionally Significant

This case is significant because it directly raises questions about:

• Judicial immunity under Article 199(5)
• The role of Article 209 and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC)
• The separation of powers between judiciary and executive
• The scope of judicial accountability

Legal experts believe that the outcome could redefine how judges of superior courts can be challenged in the future.

Article 193: Eligibility of High Court Judges

Under Article 193 of the Constitution, a person can be appointed as a High Court judge if:

• He or she has been an advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years, or
• Has held a judicial office for a prescribed period

To practice law, a lawyer must possess a valid law degree and a licence issued by a bar council. Critics argue that degree verification falls under the jurisdiction of bar councils, not constitutional courts.

Role of Article 209 and the Supreme Judicial Council

Article 209 establishes the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which is the constitutional forum for:

• Investigating misconduct of judges
• Examining incapacity or corruption allegations
• Recommending removal of judges to the President

A large section of the legal community argues that any inquiry into a judge’s eligibility or conduct must go through the SJC, not via a quo warranto petition.

They warn that allowing such petitions could render Article 209 ineffective.

Amicus Curiae’s Position on the Case

Barrister Zafarullah, serving as amicus curiae, has supported the petitioner’s stance. He argued that:

• A judge’s eligibility can be examined through quo warranto
• Such scrutiny does not fall under Article 209
• Certain writs are maintainable against judges, including:
  • Quo warranto
  • Habeas corpus

However, he clarified that writs such as mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition cannot be issued against a high court judge.

Opposition From the Legal Community

Many senior lawyers have raised serious objections, stating that:

• Judges enjoy constitutional immunity
• A judge of the same court cannot issue a writ against another judge
• Allowing quo warranto against judges may open doors to harassment and pressure tactics

They fear that such practices could undermine judicial independence, which is a cornerstone of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Precedents on Judicial Immunity

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that:

• A judge of a court cannot take action against another judge of the same court
• Article 199(5) grants immunity to judges for acts performed in judicial or administrative capacity

In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, the court emphasized that immunity exists to protect judges from internal and external pressure.

Reference to the Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry Case

The court relied heavily on the Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry case, which reaffirmed that:

• Judicial immunity preserves institutional integrity
• Judges must not fear retaliatory proceedings
• Independence of judiciary is essential under Article 2A (Objectives Resolution)

The judgment stated that immunity ensures judges can perform duties without intimidation.

Judicial Activism After the Lawyers’ Movement

Following the 2007 Lawyers’ Movement and restoration of judges in 2009, Pakistan witnessed an era of aggressive judicial activism. During this time:

• Many lawmakers were disqualified
• Parliament’s authority weakened
• Quo warranto was frequently invoked

Major political parties like PML-N and PPP were among the most affected.

Changing Power Balance After the 27th Constitutional Amendment

Legal observers note that after the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the balance of power has shifted. The executive is believed to have gained stronger influence, while:

• Judges not aligned with the government reportedly face internal pressure
• Judicial accountability debates have intensified

The current case is being seen as part of this evolving power dynamic.

Possible Outcomes and Legal Implications

The IHC’s decision could:

• Set a new constitutional precedent
• Clarify the limits of quo warranto jurisdiction
• Strengthen or weaken judicial immunity
• Impact future challenges against judges

Legal analysts believe the ruling will be closely studied by courts, lawyers, and constitutional experts nationwide.

Conclusion

The Islamabad High Court’s decision to hear a quo warranto petition against Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri represents a defining moment for Pakistan’s constitutional jurisprudence.

At its core, the case is not just about one judge’s eligibility but about how far judicial accountability can go without compromising judicial independence. The outcome will shape future interpretations of Articles 193, 199, and 209, and may redraw the boundaries between scrutiny and immunity.

As Pakistan’s legal system evolves, this case stands as a critical test of constitutional balance, rule of law, and institutional integrity.

5 Important FAQs