 |
| PLD 2026 SC 81 |
ہائی کورٹ کے جج کو عدالتی کام سے روکنا – سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ (PLD 2026 SC 81)
تعارف
پس منظر اور حقائق
یہی نکتہ بعد ازاں سپریم کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا گیا۔
اہم قانونی سوالات
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
قانونی اصول اور اہمیت
نتیجہ
Must read judgment.
P 1. D 2026 Supreme Court 81
Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Senior Judge, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shahid Bilal Hassan, []
JUSTICE TARIQ MEHMOOD JAHANGIRI, JUDGE, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT-Petitioner
Versus
MIAN DAWOOD, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT and others-Respondents
C.P.L.A. No.4247 of 2025, decided on 30th September, 2025.
(Against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No.3670 of 2025).
Per Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan
Art 199 (1)06)60) Writ of quo warranto against Judge o Appellant was a sitting judge of High Court who had been restrained from performing his official work by Chief Justice of that High of High Court Restraining from judicial work Non-deciding of objection Court in a petition filed against him assailing his appointment as Judge of High Court--Validity-Judge of High Court could not be that High Court Court set aside restraining order passed against appellant till decision Supreme Judicial Council restrained from performing his judicial function through interim order in Constitutional petition of quo-warranto filed against him in Supreme Court expected that Division Bench of High Court would first decide office objection(s) and proceed in accordance with law... Appeal was allowed.
Malik Asad Ali and others' case PLD 1998 SC 161 fol.
Per Shahid Bilal Hassan, J., agreeing with Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.
(b) High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders-
-Volume V, Chapter 1-A, Rr. 9 & 9A-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss. 21 & 24-A-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 (1)(h)(ii)-Writ of quo warranto--Office objection--Non-deciding of objection--Effect-Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Speaking order-Appellant was a sitting Judge of High Court who had been restrained from performing his official work by Chief Justice of that High Court in a petition filed against him assailing his appointment as Judge of High Court, without first deciding office objection raised against that petition Validity Nature proceedings objection are administrative While an objection case, under Volume V Chapter 1-A, Rules 9 & 9-A of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, High Court was performing an administrative function and only after the office objection was "overruled", the case was matured on judicial side and would formally enter domain of jurisdiction of High Court-Since the proceedings germane to dealing with objections of office, raised on presentation of Constitutional petitions, appeals, etc., were of administrative nature, absence of power of review was not obstacle to recall any earlier order if it is found to be contrary to Jaw Authority law-A ority competent to pass an orde ision, under section 21 of General Clauses Act, rder even in absence of express provision, same until the definite act is taken-Supreme Court set aside restraining order passed 1897, cán also revoke, rescind or recall against appellant-Judge-Supreme Court restored the position ante and directed High Court to first decide fate of office objections through speaking order and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed.
Zahid Zahid Hussa Hussain and another v. The State 1998 SCMR 611; Capital Development Auth Shaheen Farooq and another 2007 SCMR 1328; Captain Faisal Ghazanfar Chav lopment Authority through through Chairman and another v. Mrs. Chaudhry v. Civil il Aviation Authority through its Director General, Lahore and others 2019 CLC 1737; Shehzad Ahmad v. Asad Niaz and 2 others PLJ 2020 Lah. 557; Farman Ali y. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2013 SC 392: Muhammad Hoota v. Basharat Ali PLID 2014 Lah. 1; 2014 CLD 64; Rana Naveed Ahmad Khan v. Province of Punjah through Secretary LG and CD PLD 2014 Lah. 436; Pakistan Lawyers Forum (Registered) through its President v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Human Rights, Islamabad and 2 others PLD 2005 Lah. 107 and Tahira Naseem v. Arshad Mehmood and others 2021 PCr.1) 682
Munir A. Malik, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Atif Rafiq, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Abid Hussain Saqi, Advocate Supreme Court, Abid S. Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court, (Assisted by Ghulam Mustafa Shah, Advocate), Riasat Ali Azad, Advocate Supreme Court, Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner with petitioner. Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P., Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.G., Dr. Mirza Muhammad Usman, Advocate-on-Record (On behalf of
AG Islamabad) on Court's Notice.
Mian Dawood, Advocate High Court Respondent No. 1 (via video link Lahore) Nemo for other Respondents.