In a significant judicial escalation, the Supreme Court on Monday suspended an Islamabad High Court (IHC) directive that had prohibited Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri from performing his judicial functions amid a mushrooming controversy over his law degree.

A five-member constitutional bench, presided over by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, took up Justice Jahangiri’s appeal against the IHC’s September 16 ruling. The apex court also issued notices to the attorney general’s office and other involved parties, adjourning the proceedings until the following day.

Other members of the distinguished bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.

The suspension overturns a decision by an IHC divisional bench, led by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, which had restrained Justice Jahangiri from his duties. That restriction was pending a Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) decision on a petition filed by lawyer Mian Dawood regarding the judge’s academic credentials.

Following the initial IHC order, five judges from the high court, including Justice Jahangiri, independently approached the nation’s top court for relief. The other petitioners were Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Saman Rifat, and Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan.

At the heart of the dispute is Justice Jahangiri’s LLB degree, which the University of Karachi nullified last week. A university notification on September 25 stated its syndicate upheld an Unfair Means Committee finding that Jahangiri had used improper methods during his studies. The university also barred him from any educational institution for three years.

In response, Justice Jahangiri has challenged the university syndicate’s decision in the Sindh High Court (SHC). His plea contends that the academic body lacked the authority to cancel a degree after it had been issued and seeks to have the ruling declared null and void.

During a recent hearing, defence counsel raised objections to the constitutional bench hearing the case, suggesting a regular bench was scheduled for September 30. However, the judges declined to recuse themselves, affirming that the constitutional issues involved made their bench the appropriate forum.