ISLAMABAD:
In a ruling reaffirming the primacy of constitutional discipline over personal feelings, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that high court judges must not allow morality, compassion, personal beliefs or political realities to shape their decisions, emphasizing that courts exist solely to interpret and apply the law.
The ruling came as the FCC set aside a Sindh High Court (SHC) decision that had ordered Benazir Bhutto Medical University to allow a student to appear for a second-year MBBS physiology “special/super supplementary examination”.
In doing so, the court established broad principles about the limits of judicial compassion and the supremacy of constitutional duty.
An 18-page judgment written by Justice Aamer Farooq made it clear that judicial legitimacy lies not in emotional or sympathetic results, but in faithful compliance with the law.
“Our legitimacy lies not in making compassionate decisions but in adhering to discovering what the law means,” the ruling states.
“We must not be influenced by our morality, personal understandings and political realities, since we have to do right by all types 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 allow that knowledge to influence our decision,” the ruling noted.
A division 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 one governed by constitutionalism.
“The people of Pakistan have consciously adopted, enacted and given themselves this constitutional order, within which judges do not function as private individuals or members of the executive. Rather, they act as impartial judges, interpreting the law and applying it to the cases before them.”
The ruling warned that allowing compassion to substitute legal obligation undermines the judicial role.
“While compassion can blur the distinction between law and morality by urging a judge to act in accordance with his personal feelings, the judicial role requires the fulfillment of constitutional duty only. Allowing compassion to override the obligation to interpret and apply the law would amount to a retreat from our judicial responsibility.”
The court further held that the high courts themselves are a creation of the Constitution and that Pakistan’s constitutional path has always evolved within the discipline of law, not through personal goodwill or unchecked authority.
The order noted that the only compassionate power, if any, is vested in the Supreme Court and the FCC under Article 187 of the 1973 Constitution, and even that differs from the “scope and ambit” of the higher courts under Article 199, which can only exercise authority expressly granted by law or the Constitution.
