Hafiz Mudassir Rizwan
SHC Dismisses Petitions in Justice Jahangiri Degree Case The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday dismissed a series of petitions against the cancellation of Islamabad High Court’s Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s law degree, observing that disruptions and slogan-shouting in the courtroom were “highly unbecoming” of members of the legal profession. The ruling marks a dramatic turn in a case that has drawn national attention, exposing not just the legal complexities surrounding the cancellation of a sitting judge’s academic credentials but also the growing tensions between sections of the bar and the bench.
The case arose from a decision of the University of Karachi (KU) which last year cancelled Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree on the recommendation of its Unfair Means Committee (UMC). The decision was challenged through multiple petitions by bar associations, lawyers, and even a KU syndicate member, leading to interim orders that temporarily restrained the university. With the SHC’s latest decision, those interim protections have now lapsed, reviving KU’s move to strip the judge of his degree.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicPolicy
On Thursday, tense scenes unfolded inside the SHC when a two-member constitutional bench comprising Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon declined to entertain Justice Jahangiri’s plea to become a party in proceedings. The bench insisted it would first determine the maintainability of the petitions before addressing his application. According to the court’s written order, lawyers representing the petitioners deliberately walked out of the courtroom, shouting slogans against the judiciary and disrupting proceedings, instead of arguing their case.
The SHC, while dismissing the petitions for non-prosecution, reminded the bar that superior courts possess the inherent power to regulate their proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The court cited precedent from PLD 1993 SC 341 and 2006 SCMR 1154, which upheld the dismissal of petitions where there is persistent lack of diligence. “This court cannot be held hostage to the whims or wishes of the advocates,” the order read, adding that while the conduct of lawyers prima facie amounted to contempt of court, the bench refrained from initiating proceedings in the spirit of judicial restraint.
https://facebook.com/republicpolicy
Interestingly, the court acknowledged that Justice Jahangiri himself addressed the bench with “dignity and patience,” though not directly on the point of the petitions, before also leaving the courtroom. The SHC stressed that any objections over transfer of the case between benches should have been addressed at the Supreme Court rather than through disruptions at the High Court. The court further directed its registrar to preserve CCTV and audio recordings from September 25, both inside and outside the courtroom, ensuring evidence of the disorder remains intact.
In a parallel development, the University of Karachi issued a fresh declaration on Thursday, formally withdrawing and cancelling Justice Jahangiri’s degree and enrollment. The KU syndicate had initially taken this decision in August 2024 after its UMC found the judge guilty of “unfair means.” The university stated: “In compliance with the syndicate meeting held on August 21, 2024, vide resolution No.06, the LLB results and degree of Mr. Tariq Mehmood s/o Qazi Muhammad Akram, seat No. 22857 and enrollment No. AIL-7124/87, is hereby withdrawn and cancelled.” The statement added that the declaration carried the approval of the KU vice chancellor.
https://instagram.com/republicpolicy
The degree cancellation itself has been controversial. On the day of the syndicate meeting, prominent academic and syndicate member Dr. Riaz Ahmed was allegedly detained by police and released only after the meeting concluded with the decision to cancel the judge’s degree. This raised questions about the transparency of the process and whether undue pressure had been exerted. Critics argue that the removal of a judge’s academic credentials through contested university procedures raises troubling precedents, while supporters of KU insist that academic integrity must remain uncompromised, even when applied to members of the judiciary.
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaYMzpX5Ui2WAdHrSg1G
The SHC’s decision also highlights a growing strain between the judiciary and segments of the legal fraternity. The bench’s strong language about “highly unbecoming conduct” reflects deeper concerns about the erosion of courtroom decorum, particularly when lawyers resort to collective walkouts and slogan-chanting. While the court exercised restraint in not issuing contempt notices, its written observations make clear that such behaviour undermines both the dignity of the profession and the authority of the judiciary.
For Pakistan’s judicial system, the Jahangiri case has become more than a matter of one man’s degree. It touches on the credibility of academic institutions, the accountability of judges, the conduct of lawyers, and the larger perception of justice itself. The dismissal of the petitions for non-prosecution may resolve one chapter, but it leaves open questions about the fairness of the university’s processes and the responsibility of bar associations in ensuring constructive engagement with the courts.
The controversy also comes at a time when the judiciary faces mounting public scrutiny, with its independence, transparency, and credibility often questioned. For many observers, the case illustrates the fragile balance between upholding principles and managing public trust. Whether through academic disputes or courtroom disruptions, the perception of disorder risks weakening the judiciary’s moral authority in the eyes of citizens.
As things stand, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri remains without a valid law degree, KU’s cancellation stands reinstated, and the SHC has drawn a line under the petitions. Yet the deeper issues raised — of decorum, process, and institutional trust — remain unsettled. Pakistan’s legal system must now grapple with the lessons of this case: that without respect for procedure, without accountability from all sides, and without a shared commitment to integrity, even the strongest institutions can be left vulnerable to erosion.
