ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) held that Tariq Jahangiri, at the time of his appointment as an Additional Judge as well as confirmation as a Judge of the IHC was not holding a valid LL.B. Degree, which is prerequisite for enrolment as an advocate. A division bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan on Monday released its detailed judgment in a petition wherein it had de-notified Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from his office as a judge of the IHC. The 116-pages judgement authored by Justice Azam, quoted verses of the Holy Quran which repeatedly commands believers to stand unwaveringly for truth and fairness, even where such truth unsettles power, prestige, or personal interest. The judgment said that in the present case, if justice demands reviewing into a Judge’s eligibility or lawful authority, then declining to inquire out of fear, comity, or misplaced reverence would itself serve as a betrayal of faith. Therefore, silence in the face of uncertainty is not comity, it is complicity. The judge further said that by virtue of undertaking this oath, a Judge must discharge his duties honestly, faithfully and in accordance with the law in order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. “A Judge; therefore, has to subordinate all personal interest to official duty, and to do right to all persons without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Justice demands the courage to examine the record impartially, to question the veracity of allegations levelled against a member of one of the highest institutions of Pakistan, and, where necessary, to rectify a wrong, so that the trust of the people and the sanctity of the law may be preserved.” The oath, thus, reinforces Article 5 of the Constitution, which declares that obedience to the Constitution and the law is an inviolable obligation of every person, without exception. The Constitution; therefore, affirms that judicial authority flows only from lawful entitlement, is to be exercised only within the constitutional bounds, and remains perpetually answerable to the very law the Judge has sworn to uphold,” read the judgment. Justice Azam noted that after having careful scrutiny of the documents produced by the Registrar of the University in juxtaposition with the report of University and noted peculiar circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the Respondent No. 1 (Tariq Jahangiri), at the time of his appointment as an Additional Judge, as well as, confirmation as a Judge of this Court, was not holding a valid LL.B. Degree, which is prerequisite for enrolment as an advocate. The judgment said when Jahangiri could not be considered as an advocate, then consequently, he was not eligible for elevation as a Judge of a High Court in terms of requirement of Article 175-A of the Constitution 1973. Accordingly, “We declare that the elevation of Respondent No. 1 was without lawful authority, as he was not eligible to be elevated as a Judge of a High Court.” It ruled, “Thus, the Respondent No. 1 ceases to hold the office of the Judge of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, forthwith,” and added; “There remains no manner of doubt that eligibility of license of an advocate originates from a valid LL.B. Degree and when said qualification itself disappears, then what could be the legal authenticity of said license? Therefore, where the defect goes to eligibility; i.e., the existence of the constitutional/ statutory qualification itself, the case is not of a curable irregularity in procedure, rather it is an illegality that strikes at the root of the warrant to hold office. Illegality is where the law places a bar that cannot be cured by repeating procedure; i.e., where the incumbent’s eligibility is null because the foundational qualification is void and/ or cancelled, or where the consultative process stands vitiated by deliberate suppression amounting to fraud. In that scenario, the very premise of re-appointment collapses.” The Court said that in the present matter, the Respondent No. 1’s use of someone else’s enrolment details and his silence regarding his three-year debarment amount to exactly the type of deliberate and conscious suppression envisioned in Manohar Reddy case. The IHC bench said that thus, the Respondent No. 1’s failure to produce the primary evidence uniquely within his possession, his original degrees and a cogent explanation for the discrepancies, leaves this Court with no option but to draw an adverse inference. A valid LL.B. degree is a sine quanon for enrolment as an advocate and, by extension, a mandatory prerequisite for elevation to the Bench under Article 193 read with Article 197. “Allowing an individual to continue exercising the sacred trust of judicial power while their foundational title is vitiated by fraud would be to compromise public confidence in the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary is not a shield for the ineligible, but a guarantee that only those lawfully qualified shall sit in judgment of their fellow citizens.” Copyright Business Recorder, 2026