The judgment underlined that speedy disposal of cases is essential for an efficient justice system
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) noted that while delaying the disclosure of a reserved order does not invalidate it, such delay undermines judicial efficiency and compromises the speedy administration of justice.
In a judgment that partly allowed a petition challenging a decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC), the FCC ordered the deletion of certain observations of the High Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in MFMY Industries Limited v. Federation of Pakistan, the FCC said the high courts should deliver their judgments under advisement within 90 days.
If complexities prevent a decision within this time, the matter should be relisted for a new hearing and decided within 120 days, it adds.
The judgment emphasized that speedy disposal of cases is essential for an effective justice system, adding that without timely judgments, the very concept of justice is compromised, leaving litigants in prolonged uncertainty.
It also expanded on the legal framework governing reserved judgments, stating that once a judgment is reserved, it remains within the exclusive domain of the court until it is formally pronounced in open court.
Any premature disclosure or leak of its contents, before it is signed and issued as an official order, constitutes a serious breach of confidentiality and may render the declaration invalid, he said.
Citing procedural rules including Order
She stressed that unsigned or prematurely disclosed judgments remained mere drafts and had no legal value. The court warned that any deviation from established rules and practices, whether by judges, court staff or parties, could result in serious consequences.
The consequences include a rehearing of the case by another court. The FCC has reaffirmed that compliance with court rules is mandatory because they have the force of law.
The court observed a recent trend of delays in the issuance of reserved judgments, which it said exacerbates the difficulties of litigants and erodes public confidence in the justice system.
He stressed that such practices are unacceptable and must be strictly avoided. The court ordered that a copy of the judgment be distributed to all high courts to ensure strict compliance with the rules governing judicial conduct and delivery of decisions.
The petitioner had approached the court against the June 3, 2021 judgment of the SHC, which had allowed a constitutional appeal filed under Article 199 of the Constitution.
