ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has affirmed that Pakistan’s high courts function as independent constitutional courts, not subordinate to either the Supreme Court or the FCC. This ruling clarifies the constitutional relationship among the superior courts and reinforces the judicial and administrative autonomy of the high courts.
In a comprehensive judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq and supported by Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, the FCC highlighted that while requests for directions from superior courts to expedite cases pending in high courts are common, they must be handled cautiously to preserve the independence of these courts.
The decision arose from an appeal filed by the Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO) challenging an Islamabad High Court order in a dispute involving Master Tiles & Ceramics Industries Ltd. The FCC first addressed the issue of an Assistant Attorney General providing consent before the Islamabad High Court on GEPCO’s behalf without proper authority.
Agreeing with GEPCO, the court held that the Assistant Attorney General lacked competence to represent GEPCO, which, as an independent entity, is entitled to engage counsel of its own choosing. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the Islamabad High Court’s order was set aside. The case filed by Master Tiles & Ceramics was reinstated as pending before the Islamabad High Court.
During proceedings, the respondent’s counsel requested that if the case was returned to the Islamabad High Court, the FCC should direct it to handle the matter expeditiously. In response, the FCC issued detailed observations on the constitutional status of high courts.
The judgment noted that under Part VII, Chapter 3 of the Constitution, Pakistan currently has five high courts, each established as independent constitutional courts. It emphasized that these high courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court or the FCC.
While district courts and other courts under Article 203 are subordinate to their respective high courts, the constitutional framework does not place high courts under the authority of either the Supreme Court or the FCC. The court clarified that the ability to challenge high court judgments through appeals does not imply subordination.
“All decisions of the High Court are challengeable before the Supreme Court and/or the Federal Constitutional Court, which does not make the referred court subordinate in any manner,” the judgment stated.
The FCC also warned against the routine issuance of directions from superior courts dictating the scheduling and disposal of cases in high courts. Each high court has its own roster, case-management system, and policies for hearing fixation, and any direction overriding these mechanisms could interfere with their institutional independence.
“Orders issuing directions to the High Courts should be made sparingly and must be couched in appropriate words,” the court advised. It added that any directive effectively overruling a high court’s case-fixation policy or hearing schedule would intrude upon its judicial and administrative autonomy.
While acknowledging that some cases may require urgent hearings after remand, the FCC stressed that superior courts should frame their observations carefully to avoid undermining high courts’ independence. It noted that directions for priority hearings from superior courts are generally administrative and recommendatory rather than mandatory, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Talat Ishaq vs National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2019 SC 112).
In conclusion, the FCC expressed the expectation that the Islamabad High Court would address the GEPCO case promptly, considering its urgency, while leaving the scheduling of proceedings to the high court’s discretion.
Legal experts regard this ruling as a significant clarification on the constitutional status of high courts and the boundaries of supervisory directions from superior appellate courts, thereby strengthening judicial independence within Pakistan’s constitutional framework.
