ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) declared that the High Courts (HCs) are independent constitutional courts and are not subordinate to either the Supreme Court or the FCC.
The judgment, authored by Justice Aamer Farooq, said, “The scheme of judicature as provided in the 1973 Constitution, at present, is that there are five independent High Courts in the country created under its Part VII, Chapter 3. The High Court, so created, is an independent Constitutional Court and is not subordinate to either the Supreme Court or the FCC.
However, in the scheme of arrangement, district judiciary and such other courts are subordinate to the respective High Court as per Article 203 of the Constitution, 1973.”
The judgment further maintained that all decisions of the High Court are challengeable before the Supreme Court and/or FCC, which does not make the referred court subordinate in any manner.
The orders, issuing directions to the High Courts, should be made sparingly and couched in appropriate words, as they have their own independent roster and case management schemes along with a policy for fixation of the cases.
It said any order or direction, which superimposes such policy or case fixation, amounts to an intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of such courts.
Undoubtedly, at times, exigency or emergency of the demands that on remission, the matter be heard by the respective High Court at an early date, but such observations must be-couched in appropriate words and should not be in a way to affect the independence of such High Court. “Even otherwise, generally directions issued are administrative in nature rather than judicial, where even a High Court issues direction(s) to the trial courts/subordinate courts, the same are administrative in nature and do not warrant any consequence but are recommendatory, asking the courts to take up the matter in priority keeping in view the urgent nature of case/list,” the judgment added.
The counsel for the petitioner Chief Executive of Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO) contended before the Court that the Attorney General’s Office was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner in the proceedings before the Islamabad High Court, as it is an independent entity and is to be represented in the court of law by the counsel of its own choice.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 (Master Tiles & Ceramics Industries Ltd) submitted that it is not the fault of respondents that the consent was given by the Attorney General’s Office; however, in the facts and circumstances, if this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the High Court, an appropriate direction for expeditious disposal of the case should be made.
The Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel that the Assistant Attorney General, in the facts and circumstances, was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner regarding the disposal of the writ petition pending before the Islamabad High Court.
The Court observed that requests of this nature are made with considerable frequency and such orders are passed by the superior courts, issuing directions for early decisions.
The Court set aside the impugned order, said that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 shall be deemed to be pending before the Islamabad High Court. It is expected that the case shall be taken up at the earliest, keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments