An Islamabad High Court’s full bench would hear a contempt plea over a “malicious campaign” against Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri on September 19.

IHC Chief Justice Aamir Farooq would lead the bench. It includes Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Babar Sattar, Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.

This comes following a controversy over Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree, which first emerged in July, but resurfaced last week as the Karachi University’s syndicate reportedly cancelled his degree.

The decision was made during a syndicate meeting held on Saturday afternoon, after Dr Riaz Ahmed, an associate professor and syndicate member, raised objections regarding the agenda item related to the judge’s degree, which had been under scrutiny for 40 years.

The full court bench conducted its first hearing before the summer break, during which notices were issued to journalists Gharida Farooqi, Hassan Ayub, and Ammar Solangi, seeking their responses.

The bench had also issued notices to the Federal Investigation Agency director general, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. It directed the institutions to submit reports within four weeks, requiring them to identify individuals involved in the “smear campaign and sharing related content.”

Also, read this

Petition filed against Justice Jahangiri over fake degree allegations

Bill seeking ban on judges holding dual nationality submitted to NA Secretariat

Justice Kayani ‘seeks’ contempt proceedings on campaign against judges

Justice Jahangiri is one of six judges who previously filed a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Council, alleging interference in judicial matters by the Inter-Services Intelligence. Their complaint included disturbing claims of spy cameras found at the entrance and inside a judge’s bedroom, which they reported to the chief justice, but no action was taken.

The judges were of the view that such a convention might provide further information as to whether judges of other high courts have had similar experiences.

“Such institutional consultation might then assist the Supreme Court to consider how best to protect independence of the judiciary, put in place a mechanism to affix liability for those who undermine such independence and clarify for the benefit of individual judges the course of action they must take when they find themselves at the receiving end of interference and/or intimidation by members of the executive.”