ISLAMABAD: The Higher Education Commission (HEC), in its detailed report submitted to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), has endorsed Karachi University’s (KU) findings that the LLB degree of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri was obtained through unfair means.
However, the HEC claimed, it had never verified Justice Jahangiri’s law degree at any stage, nor had the judge ever approached the commission for verification.
The report was filed after a bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Mohammad Azam Khan directed the HEC to provide complete academic record of Justice Jahangiri in a case pertaining to his eligibility to hold judicial office.
During the hearing, the court was requested to summon the original academic record directly from Karachi University, which had cancelled the LLB degree awarded to the judge though the university decision was later suspended by the Sindh High Court.
Chief Justice Dogar observed that the matter involved a serious allegation and must be examined strictly on the basis of the record. Since the HEC is the regulatory authority for all universities in Pakistan, the bench would first evaluate the commission’s report before deciding whether KU should be issued a notice, he remarked.
In its submission, the HEC enclosed KU’s inquiry report that revealed glaring discrepancies in the judge’s academic record. It stated that candidate ‘Tariq Mehmood’ obtained an LLB degree in 1991 under enrolment number 5968, but records showed that another student, Imtiaz Ahmed, had been enrolled under the same number in 1987, while the transcript for LLB Part-I was issued in the name of ‘Tariq Jahangiri’.
The report added the judge had also enrolled for LLB Part-I under a second enrolment number, 7124 — a violation of the university’s rules, which permit only one enrolment number for the entire duration of a degree programme.
The inquiry committee refrained from labelling the degree as ‘bogus’, but it declared the credentials invalid on account of multiple identities and conflicting enrolment records.
The KU alleged the judge “used and appeared in LLB examinations on false identities having different enrolment numbers of Karachi University in collusion with university staff”. It further stated that he had “personified different other regular/ex-regular students of Islamia College, i.e., Mohammad Naeemuddin, son of Mohammad Moinuddin, and Imtiaz Ahmed.”
As a result, the university declared the candidate guilty of using unfair means, cancelled the result, and imposed a three-year ban, allowing him to reappear in examinations in 1992.
The controversy has followed a protracted legal trajectory since Sept 16, when the same IHC division bench first took up the petition and issued an interim order restraining Justice Jahangiri from performing judicial functions until the maintainability of the petition could be decided.
The decision, made without issuing prior notice to the judge, had sparked debate within the legal community over whether a high court could suspend a sitting judge through an interim order. On Sept 29, the SC intervened, setting aside the restraining order.
A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, held that a high court could not bar a judge from performing judicial functions while hearing a quo warranto petition.
The ruling clarified that it addressed only the legality of the interim order and not the merits of the allegations. The SC later directed the IHC to decide all preliminary objections and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Published in Dawn, December 9th, 2025
