ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that the Sindh High Court (SHC) committed “judicial excess” by exercising suo motu jurisdiction over police officials and interfering in policy directives without justification.
Such powers, the FCC said, are not available to the high courts under Article 199 of the Constitution.
In a two-page ruling, a two-member FCC tribunal set aside the SHC’s orders dated October 27 and November 3, 2025, passed under Constitutional Petition No. S-1139 of 2025, to the extent that they exercised suo motu jurisdiction over police officials and interfered in political matters.
“The impugned orders… are set aside as being the result of an assumption of suo motu jurisdiction which is not vested in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the observations contained therein amount to judicial excess,” the judgment said.
During the proceedings, it was argued before the FCC that the SHC’s instructions relating to internal police reforms and monitoring of investigative procedures – issued in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction when these matters were not brought before the court in the petitions considered – constituted a judicial encroachment on executive and administrative functions.
The Sindh Advocate General also argued that the SHC judge committed judicial excess in passing the impugned orders and failed to appreciate that courts, as a general rule, should refrain from interfering in policy directives.
The FCC upheld this position, observing in its order that it “fully agrees” with the arguments made by the Sindh Advocate General.
However, the Constitutional Court clarified that the investigations already opened and the investigations to be carried out against the applicants in both cases would continue in strict compliance with the law.
The FCC directed that the ongoing proceedings be conducted independently and without being influenced by any observations or directions contained in the SHC orders which were beyond the scope of the litigation before the learned Single Judge.
“Investigations initiated and investigation to be conducted against the petitioners, in these two petitions, shall continue in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation(s)/direction(s), these were beyond the lis (dispute) fixed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the Constitutional Petition,” the order written by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi said.
