- Sindh High Court says Sept 22 order in Jehangiri case valid
- Court observes no plea filed before SC within one week.
- Counsel questions legality of bench order in degree case.
A constitutional bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) has remarked that its September 22 order in the case concerning Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri’s degree was a “judicial order” that remained valid.
The court noted that if the petitioners had any objection to the order, the proper course was to challenge it before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The bench observed that no such challenge was filed even after the passage of nearly a week.
Issuing its order on identical petitions with regard to degree of the IHC judge, which was dismissed by the constitutional bench on Thursday on non-prosecution amid the counsel’s protest, the division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha turned down the counsel demand for recusal from the bench on the basis of bias observing whether a judge recused or not was his decision based on his conscience.
The counsel in Justice Jehangiri’s degree case had questioned the legality of the bench order to hear the case by assigning the case to itself from another constitutional bench that had already fixed the hearing of the petitions on September 30. The lawyers boycotted the court proceedings when the bench refused to recuse itself from the case.
The bench observed that both judges of the bench were of the view that none of the grounds for their recusal was made out, and it was settled by now that if there was a question of maintainability, it must be taken up first.
The SHC bench also rejected the objections of the petitioners’ counsel that these petitions should be heard and decided by a regular bench of the SHC and observed that these petitions also fell within the domain of the constitutional benches based on the relief sought.
The high court observed that the petitioners and intervener had wilfully refused to pursue the matter and walked out during the hearing when asked to argue on the maintainability of these petitions.
The SHC observed that the reasons were obvious, as they wanted to demonstrate a deliberate lack of interest and constituted a gross abuse of the process of the court.
The bench observed that superior courts possessed the inherent power to dismiss constitutional petitions for non-prosecution or default to regulate proceedings under the Article 199 of the Constitution, a principle confirmed by the Supreme Court where a persistent lack of diligence justified dismissal. The high court observed that it was compelled to dismiss the petitions due to non-prosecution.
Regarding the counsel’s objection to the formation of the bench, the SHC observed that it was for itself to determine how to regulate its own proceedings, and it could not be dictated to by the advocates.
The SHC observed that it had been decided that the preliminary objections and, if need be, the question of maintainability, shall be decided through a single common order. The high court observed that, naturally, if the objections were found to be valid, the question of maintainability might no longer remain relevant.
The SHC also took exception to the unruly behaviour of some counsel and observed that the counsel began raising slogans against the judiciary and completely disrupted the decorum of the court. It observed that such conduct was highly unbecoming and not expected from senior members of the legal profession and prima facie, such conduct amounted to contempt of court.
The SHC, however, observed that by way of indulgence and by showing maximum judicial restraint, it had decided to refrain from issuing any such notices and warned that the counsel should maintain court decorum in future.
The high court observed that it had given an opportunity of hearing to all the counsel for the petitioners on the question of maintainability of these petitions; however, a counsel for the petitioners deliberately chose not to avail this opportunity and instead walked out of the courtroom while causing a rumpus.
The SHC also directed the registrar of the court to immediately preserve all CCTV recordings and any audio recording of September 25, both inside and outside of the courtroom. The high court observed that it was for the court to regulate its own proceedings and it could not be held hostage to the whims/wishes of the advocates as to the manner in which the petitions shall be heard.
The bench observed that Justice Jehangiri addressed the court with dignity and patience; however, not on the point of any petition or listed application, which, if any, were accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution as he also left the court room despite being given an opportunity of being heard on any petition or listed application.
The petitioners, including the Karachi Bar Association and others, had challenged the decision of the unfair means committee of the University of Karachi on August 17, 2024, whereby the degree of Justice Jehangiri was cancelled.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that under the relevant clauses of the university, all punishments under Regulation 14 shall be awarded by the syndicate on the recommendation of the unfair means committee appointed by the syndicate for the purpose, and the latter itself may hold an inquiry or authorise anyone or more of its members to do so.
Originally published in The News
