Constitution does not empower high courts to dispense complete justice or act on compassion: FCC

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) held that the Constitution does not empower High Courts to dispense complete justice or act on compassion, and that they are strictly bound by law and the doctrine of stare decisis, requiring adherence to the decisions of superior courts.

“What distinguishes judges from others, who serve this nation, is their commitment to abide by the rules and principles they have previously pronounced, in accordance with the established doctrine of stare decisis,” said a judgment authored by Justice Aamir Farooq.

A two-judge bench of the FCC comprising Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan Barrech heard an appeal of Vice Chancellor Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University and others (petitioners) against the decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC). The bench dismissed the SHC verdict.

The SHC, while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, under Article 199 of the Constitution, issued a writ of mandamus directing the petitioners to hold a “super/ supplementary examination” for the respondent (a student of Second Year MBBS), notwithstanding the absence of any law, rule, or regulation requiring the conduct of such an examination.

Justice Farooq noted that the Sindh High Court, while acknowledging that no law exists that allows “special/ super supplementary examination” but the same is given as an “equitable relief”, went off the course.

It further noted that the SHC, acting as a court of law, was not competent to interfere in the functioning of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University by directing the conduct of a “special/ super supplementary examination.” Courts must exercise restraint and interfere in the affairs of educational institutions only in exceptional circumstances, namely where the governing laws or policies offend the principles of natural justice or transgress constitutional or statutory mandates.

The judgment said: “Every case must be adjudicated by the High Courts strictly in accordance with the law and not on considerations of compassion, equity or whims of a judge.”

The judiciary occupies an indispensable position, being entrusted with the responsibility to interpret, and apply the laws of the land in accordance with constitutional mandates. A constitutional order in which law exists, etched in black and white, leave no room for arbitrariness, and ensuring that governance and adjudication are guided by laws only.

The judgment said that the High Courts are themselves a creation of the Constitution, 1973, and the constitutional journey has always unfolded within the discipline of law, not within a realm governed by personal goodwill or unchecked authority. “Even in moments where the law appears to be silent, we are not allowed to substitute legal command with individual morality or compassion.” “The duty of the Courts remains to seek an answer that best resonates with our constitutional order, guided by sound constitutional principles and our judicial precedents,” it further noted

The only power of compassion that might exist or may not exist is only conferred on the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court under Article 187 of the Constitution, and that too is different from the “scope and ambit” of High Court under Article 199. “Despite having the power of rendering “complete justice” we do not lose our status as courts of law and still have to act within our broad constitutional fabric and judicial precedents,” said the judgment.

Quoting Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 US 215, Justice Farooq wrote; “We ought not to be influenced by our morality, personal understandings and political realities as we “have to do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will” and “even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision”.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026