ISLAMABAD:
In a ruling affirming the primacy of constitutional discipline over personal feelings, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that superior court judges must not allow morality, compassion, personal beliefs or political realities to shape their decisions, stressing that courts exist solely to interpret and apply the law.
The ruling came as the FCC set aside a decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC) that had directed Benazir Bhutto Medical University to allow a student to appear in a “special/super supplementary examination” for second year MBBS physiology.
In doing so, the court laid down broad principles on the limits of judicial compassion and the supremacy of constitutional duty.
An 18-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq made 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 abiding by uncovering what the law means,” the judgment said.
“We should not be influenced by our morals, personal understandings and political realities, as we must do justice to all kinds of people, according to the law, without fear or favor, affection or ill will, and even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision,” the judgment noted.
A division bench of the FCC, headed 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 a nation governed by constitutionalism.
“The people of Pakistan have consciously adopted, enacted and given themselves this constitutional order within which judges do not act as private individuals or members of the executive branch. Rather, they act as impartial judges who interpret the law and apply it to the cases before them.”
The judgment warned that allowing compassion to replace legal obligation undermines the judicial role.
“While compassion may blur the line between law and morality by urging a judge to act in accordance with personal feelings, the judicial role requires only compliance with constitutional duties. To allow compassion to override the obligation to interpret and apply the law would amount to a retreat from our legal responsibility.”
The court further held that the High Courts themselves are a creation of the Constitution and that Pakistan’s constitutional journey has always unfolded within the discipline of law, not through personal benevolence or unchecked authority.
The order noted that the sole power of commiseration — if it exists — is vested in the Supreme Court and the FCC under Article 187 of the Constitution, 1973, and even that is distinct from the “scope and scope” of the highest courts under Article 199, which can only exercise authority expressly granted by law or the Constitution.
