Judges must follow law, not sentiment: FCC

Judgment says courts cannot replace law with personal morality

ISLAMABAD:

In a judgment reasserting the primacy of constitutional discipline over personal sentiment, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that judges of superior courts 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 Sindh High Court (SHC) decision 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 does not lie in emotional or sympathetic outcomes, but in faithful adherence to the law.

"Our legitimacy lies not in making compassionate decisions but in adhering to uncovering what the law means," the ruling stated.

"We ought not to be influenced by our morality, personal understandings and political realities as we have to do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, 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, led by Justice Aamer Farooq, observed that when Pakistan is recognized as a democracy founded upon the rule of law, designed to secure "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 to themselves this constitutional order, within which judges do not function as private individuals or members of executive. Rather, they act as impartial Justices, who interpret the law and apply it to the cases before them."

The judgment warned that allowing compassion to substitute legal obligation undermines the judicial role.

"While compassion may blur the distinction between law and morality by urging a judge to act according to personal sentiment, the judicial role demands adherence to constitutional duty only. To allow 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 journey has always unfolded within the discipline of law, not through personal goodwill or unchecked authority.

The order noted that the only power of compassion - if it exists - is conferred on the Supreme Court and the FCC under Article 187 of the Constitution, 1973, and even that differs from the "scope and ambit" of the high courts under Article 199, which may only exercise authority expressly granted by law or the Constitution.