ISLAMABAD:
In a ruling reaffirming the primacy of constitutional discipline over personal feelings, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that superior court judges must not allow morality, compassion, personal convictions or political realities to shape their decisions, emphasizing that courts exist solely to interpret and apply the law.
The decision comes as the FCC overturned a decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC) which had directed Benazir Bhutto Medical University to allow a student to appear for “special/super supplementary examination” for second year MBBS Physiology.
In doing so, the court laid down broad principles about the limits of judicial compassion and the supremacy of constitutional duty.
An 18-page judgment written by Justice Aamer Farooq makes it clear that judicial legitimacy lies not in emotional or sympathetic outcomes, but in faithful adherence to the law.
“Our legitimacy lies not in making compassionate decisions, but in our willingness to discover what the law means,” the ruling said.
“We must not allow ourselves to be influenced by our morality, our personal conceptions and our political realities, for we must do what is right towards all kinds of people, according to the law, without fear or favor, affection or ill will, and even if we could foresee what is going to happen, we would have no authority to let this knowledge influence our decision,” notes the judgment.
A division panel of the FCC, led by Justice Aamer Farooq, observed that when Pakistan is recognized as a democracy based on the rule of law, designed to ensure “freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice”, it marks a transition from a nation governed by individuals to one governed by constitutionalism.
“The people of Pakistan have consciously adopted, promulgated and given themselves this constitutional order, within which judges do not function as individuals or members of the executive. Rather, they act as impartial judges, who interpret the law and apply it to the cases before them.”
The judgment warns that allowing compassion to replace legal duty undermines the judicial role.
“Although compassion may blur the distinction between law and morality by prompting a judge to act on personal feelings, the judicial role requires only respect for constitutional duty. Allowing compassion to trump the obligation to interpret and apply the law would amount to an abdication of our judicial responsibility.
The court further held that the high courts themselves are a creation of the Constitution and Pakistan’s constitutional journey has always been within the discipline of law, and not through personal goodwill or unchecked authority.
The order notes that the only compassionate power – if it exists – is vested in the Supreme Court and the FCC under Section 187 of the 1973 Constitution, and even that differs from the “scope and scope” of the high courts under Section 199, which can only exercise authority expressly granted by statute or the Constitution.
