Islamabad — A serious tension is growing inside Pakistan’s judiciary. The Federal Constitutional Court has pushed back against the practice of superior courts directing high courts on when to decide their cases — placing it in direct conflict with the Supreme Court.
According to Beyond Time News, the FCC’s latest judgment states that any order fixing timelines or interfering with a high court’s case management amounts to intrusion into its judicial and administrative independence.
The Case Behind the Ruling
On May 12, the Supreme Court directed the Islamabad High Court to decide applications filed by rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chatta — seeking suspension of their sentences — preferably within two weeks.
That direction became the trigger for the FCC’s firm response.
What the FCC Decided
In a three-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq, the FCC rejected a request seeking directions to a high court for an expeditious decision.
According to Beyond Time News, the court stated that Pakistan’s five high courts are fully independent constitutional courts under the Constitution of 1973 — not subordinate to either the Supreme Court or the FCC.
“Any order or direction that superimposes such policy or case fixation amounts to intrusion into the judicial and administrative independence of such courts,” the judgment read.
Such directions, the court added, must be issued sparingly and worded with great care.
Advisory, Not Binding
According to Beyond Time News, the FCC clarified that directions issued to high courts are administrative and recommendatory — not judicially binding. They are a request to prioritise a matter, not a command to meet a deadline.
The court acknowledged that genuine urgency may sometimes require early hearing, but stressed that even then, the language must preserve high court independence.
A Deepening Divide
Since the 27th Constitutional Amendment, a clear divergence has emerged between the FCC and the Supreme Court.
According to Beyond Time News, the two courts have already taken opposing positions on the government’s wedlock policy. The Supreme Court ruled it creates a legitimate expectation for married civil servants that cannot be arbitrarily set aside. The FCC ruled the opposite — that the policy creates no vested right and cannot justify indefinite posting.
On directing high courts on timelines, the divide has now widened further.
Legal experts warn this growing split creates real uncertainty for citizens and litigants who need clarity on which court’s interpretation of the law ultimately prevails.
Petition FCC Seeking Restoration of Ali Amin Gandapur as KP Chief Minister
Where Things Stand
The FCC noted that the writ petition would remain pending before the Islamabad High Court and expected it to be taken up promptly given its urgency.
The FCC has previously declared that supremacy in constitutional adjudication now vests in it — and that all courts, including the Supreme Court, are bound by its rulings.
How Pakistan’s judiciary resolves this institutional tension remains one of the most consequential legal questions facing the country today.
