KARACHI, 25 September 2025 — A dramatic scene unfolded before the Constitutional Bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) during the hearing of multiple connected constitutional petitions, including the controversial matter regarding the cancellation of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri’s law degree.
The Bench, headed by Justice Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, repeatedly directed counsel to address the issue of maintainability of the petitions. However, senior lawyers including Salahuddin Ahmed, Faisal Siddiqui, Ebrahim Saifuddin, and Ghulam Rehman Korai either refused to argue, left the courtroom, or failed to appear. As a result, the Court dismissed several petitions — including those filed by the Karachi Bar Association and Islamabad Bar Association — for non-prosecution, along with all listed applications.
During proceedings, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri personally addressed the Court, noting that Karachi University had never issued him any notice for degree cancellation. Yet, instead of examining this argument, the Bench raised questions regarding the credibility of the petitioners and whether Justice Tariq Mehmood could be impleaded as a party in a case that directly affected him. This judicial approach, according to members of the bar, gave rise to concerns that the matter was being treated differently or unfairly, provoking anger among lawyers present in the courtroom.
As tempers escalated, lawyers began hooting and shouting slogans against the judiciary, disrupting court decorum. The situation led to a walkout, after which the Court observed that such conduct was “highly unbecoming of senior members of the legal profession” and prima facie amounted to contempt of court. However, the Bench refrained from issuing contempt notices, citing judicial restraint.
In its four-page written order, the SHC noted that counsel had been given ample opportunity to argue on maintainability but had deliberately refused, constituting a gross abuse of process. The Court stressed that it could not be dictated to by advocates on the manner of regulating its own proceedings.
Importantly, the Bench directed the Registrar of the Constitutional Bench to immediately preserve all CCTV and audio recordings of the 25 September hearing and the subsequent lawyers’ protest inside and outside the courtroom.
The incident has sparked serious debate within the legal fraternity, with many questioning whether the SHC’s line of questioning was necessary or appropriate, given the direct personal interest of Justice Tariq Mehmood in the degree cancellation issue. The controversy has further deepened divisions between sections of the bar and the bench.
