mm-news-@dmin If petitioners had any objection to the court order, the proper course was to challenge it before the SC, observes the SHC
- Sindh High Court says Sept 22 order in Jehangiri case valid
- The Court observes no plea filed before the SC within one week.
- Counsel questions the legality of the bench order in the 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 one filed such a challenge even after nearly a week had passed.
Issuing its order on identical petitions about the IHC judge’s degree, which the constitutional bench dismissed on Thursday for non-prosecution amid the counsel’s protest, the division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha rejected the counsel’s demand for recusal, observing that a judge alone decides whether to recuse 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.
Both judges on the bench agreed that none of the grounds justified their recusal and reaffirmed that the court must first take up questions of maintainability.
The SHC bench rejected the petitioners’ counsel’s objections that a regular bench should hear and decide. The petitioners observed that the relief sought placed them within the domain of constitutional benches.
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 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 bench’s formation, the SHC observed that it alone determined how to regulate its proceedings and that advocates could not dictate it.
The SHC decided to resolve the preliminary objections and, if needed, the question of maintainability through a single common order. The high court noted that if the objections proved valid, the question of maintainability would 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. The court observed that such conduct was highly unbecoming of senior members of the legal profession. And, prima facie, 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 the 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 stated that it regulates its own proceedings. And will not be held hostage to the advocates’ whims or wishes on how to hear the petitions.
The bench observed that Justice Jehangiri addressed the court with dignity and patience. But not on the point of any petition or listed application. The court noted that it dismissed those petitions or applications for non-prosecution. After he left the courtroom, despite being allowed an opportunity to be heard.
On August 17, 2024, the petitioners, including the Karachi Bar Association and others. Challenged the University of Karachi’s unfair means committee decision that cancelled Justice Jehangiri’s degree.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that under the university’s relevant clauses. The syndicate shall award all punishments under Regulation 14 based on the unfair means committee’s recommendation. And the committee may either hold an inquiry itself or authorise one or more of its members to do so.
