Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari approved the removal of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from the Islamabad High Court in December, following a landmark court ruling that concluded he did not hold a valid law degree at the time of his appointment. The unprecedented de-notification—the formal revocation of his judicial appointment—has sparked a constitutional crisis exposing tensions between judicial independence, institutional jurisdiction, and accountability mechanisms for superior court judges.
Justice Jahangiri’s name and photograph were removed from the official Islamabad High Court website, and he was excluded from the list of former judges—an administrative step underscoring the finality of the court’s decision. The removal marks one of the most consequential judicial accountability disputes in Pakistan’s recent history.
The controversy originated when a petition questioned whether Justice Jahangiri possessed a valid LLB degree at the time of his elevation to the Islamabad High Court, a constitutional prerequisite for appointment as a superior court judge. The Islamabad High Court declared the petition maintainable and directed responses from relevant authorities, including the judge himself.
The University of Karachi cancelled Justice Jahangiri’s law degree through its syndicate on grounds of alleged unfair means. However, the Sindh High Court intervened by suspending the university’s decision, preventing the cancellation from taking immediate legal effect. This judicial divergence created a complex legal scenario in which one high court’s interim relief appeared to conflict with another high court’s substantive findings.
Despite the Sindh High Court’s suspension of the university’s decision, the Islamabad High Court concluded in its December 2025 judgment that Justice Jahangiri did not hold a valid law degree at the time of his appointment. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar held that his elevation to the bench was therefore without lawful authority. The court directed the federal government to de-notify him as a judge, effectively removing him from office.
Justice Jahangiri has challenged the ruling at multiple levels. He filed a petition before the Federal Constitutional Court arguing that the Islamabad High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a high court judge. He contended that under Pakistan’s Constitution, allegations concerning a judge’s conduct fall exclusively within the domain of the Supreme Judicial Council—the constitutionally mandated body for judicial accountability. Justice Jahangiri also raised objections regarding the composition of the bench that heard his case, asserting that procedural fairness had been compromised.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan had already entered the dispute in September 2025, suspending an interim Islamabad High Court order that had barred Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial duties. The apex court’s intervention highlighted concerns about whether a high court could restrain one of its own judges without invoking constitutional mechanisms such as the Supreme Judicial Council.
The legal community’s response to Justice Jahangiri’s removal has been deeply divided. Several bar associations criticized the Islamabad High Court’s approach, arguing that allowing writ petitions against judges could expose the judiciary to political pressure. Some lawyers staged partial strikes, insisting that the precedent threatens judicial independence. Others defended the decision as a necessary assertion of accountability, maintaining that no individual can occupy judicial office without meeting constitutional qualifications.
The case raises fundamental constitutional questions about the balance between judicial independence and accountability. While independence protects judges from external influence, accountability ensures institutional integrity. The dispute highlights ambiguities in Pakistan’s constitutional framework regarding who has authority to determine a judge’s eligibility once appointed.
The jurisdictional tensions exposed by the case illustrate a fragmented accountability mechanism. The conflicting roles played by the Islamabad High Court, Sindh High Court, Supreme Court, Federal Constitutional Court, and Supreme Judicial Council have resulted in contradictory orders, legal uncertainty, and public confusion—outcomes that undermine confidence in the justice system.
Several developments will shape the final outcome. Decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court on jurisdiction, possible proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council, and eventual adjudication by the Supreme Court are likely to determine not only Justice Jahangiri’s fate but also the future of judicial accountability in Pakistan. Final determinations regarding the status of his academic qualifications by the University of Karachi and the Higher Education Commission may carry persuasive weight.
