The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled in a significant judgment that the country’s high courts are neither subordinate to the Supreme Court nor to the Federal Constitutional Court, emphasizing that each high court enjoys the status of an independent constitutional court and that its judicial and administrative powers cannot be subjected to unnecessary interference.
According to the detailed judgment approved for reporting, Justice Aamer Farooq authored the verdict in the case of Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO) versus Master Tiles. Allowing the appeal, the court laid down important legal principles regarding the constitutional status, autonomy and case management powers of the high courts.
The judgment noted that superior courts are often approached through petitions seeking directions to high courts for the early disposal of pending cases or for fixing matters for urgent hearing. However, it stressed that the constitutional independence of high courts must be kept in view while considering such requests.
The court observed that Pakistan presently has five autonomous high courts, each functioning as an independent constitutional court. It held that although decisions of high courts may be challenged before the Supreme Court or the Federal Constitutional Court, the mere existence of appellate or review jurisdiction does not render one court subordinate to another.
The judgment clarified that district courts and other courts established under Article 203 of the Constitution are subordinate to the high courts. High courts, however, possess a distinct constitutional status and their powers and authority must be respected.
The Federal Constitutional Court further observed that high courts maintain their own case-fixation policies, independent rosters and case-management systems. Any order or direction that overrides these policies or interferes with the process of fixing cases for hearing could amount to encroachment upon the judicial and administrative independence of a high court.
The court acknowledged that in certain situations the urgent nature of a case may require that, upon remand, the matter be fixed for hearing before the relevant high court at the earliest opportunity. Even in such circumstances, it said, directions should be framed in careful and appropriate language so as not to undermine the autonomy of the high court concerned.
The judgment added that such directions are generally administrative rather than judicial in nature and should therefore be issued with due regard to the constitutional position and independence of the high courts.
Allowing the appeal, the Federal Constitutional Court held that the relevant writ petition would be deemed pending before the Islamabad High Court and expressed the expectation that, considering the urgency of the matter, it would be fixed for hearing at the earliest possible date.