Superior courts should issue directions to high courts for swiftly deciding pending cases sparingly, FCC rules
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday ruled that directions to the high courts for expeditious decisions in pending matters by superior courts should be issued sparingly and couched in appropriate words.
The judgement comes against the backdrop of a recent petition by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) before the Supreme Court challenging its May 12, 2026 direction to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for deciding in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.
The NCCIA had also requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discrimination”.
According to a three-page order by Justice Aamer Farooq, issued in deciding a dispute between the Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco) and Master Tiles and Ceramics Industries Ltd, it was held that high courts have their independent roster and case management schemes along with a policy for fixation of cases. It said that any order or direction, which superimposes case fixation, amounts to intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of high court.
The petitioner, Gepco, had challenged the July 10, 2025 order of the IHC before FCC, contending that the Attorney General Office was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner in the proceedings before IHC, as the power company was an independent entity to be represented in the court of law by the counsel of its own choice.
On the other hand, Master Tiles and Ceramics, the respondents, had argued that it was not their fault that the consent was given by the Attorney General Office; however, it submitted that if the FCC was inclined to remit the matter back to the IHC, an appropriate direction for expeditious disposal of the case should also be made.
Justice Farooq, who headed the two-judge FCC bench along with Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, however, set aside the IHC order with directions that the writ petitions filed by Master Tiles will be deemed to be pending before the IHC.
It is expected that the case shall be taken up at the earliest, keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter, the FCC said.
In the judgement, Justice Farooq held that the scheme of judicature as provided in the Constitution suggested that there were five independent high courts in the country created under the Constitution.
“The high court, so created, is an independent constitutional court and is not subordinate to either the SC or 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,” it said.
All decisions of the high court are challengeable before the SC or the FCC, which does not make the referred court subordinate in any manner, he observed.
Justice Farooq emphasised that adding any order or direction, which superimposes such policy or case fixation, amounts to intrusion in the judicial and administrative independence of such courts.
Undoubtedly, at times, exigency or emergency of the lis 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 independence of the high court, observed Justice Farooq.
Even otherwise, generally directions issued are administrative in nature rather than judicial, where even a high court issues directions 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 the case/lis, Justice Farooq explained.
Justice Farooq observed that the FCC agreed that the assistant attorney general, in the facts and circumstances, was not competent to give consent on behalf of the petitioner company regarding disposal of the writ petition pending before the IHC.
The order stated that requests for the issuance of directions to the high courts for early disposal of cases were being made with considerable frequency, and such orders were passed by the superior courts issuing directions for early decisions.
