Only Supreme Court and FCC can grant compassionate relief: Judge

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that the authority to grant relief on grounds of compassion under Article 187 of the Constitution rests exclusively with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, while high courts exercise a limited jurisdiction under Article 199 and may only act within powers expressly conferred by the Constitution or law.

The observation was made by the FCC Judge Justice Aamer Farooq in an 18-page written judgment while setting aside a decision of the Sindh High Court that had allowed an MBBS student to appear in a special or super supplementary examination.

According to the 24NewsHD TV channel, the student, Altaf Hussain Soomro of Benazir Bhutto Medical University (BBMU), was unable to appear in his annual examinations due to a kidney transplant and later also missed the supplementary examination for medical reasons.

The student had submitted two applications to the university’s vice chancellor (VC) seeking permission to take a special examination, but both requests were rejected by the administration.

Following the refusals, the student approached the Sindh High Court (SHC) under Article 199 of the Constitution, which allowed him to appear in a special examination.

However, while hearing the case related to the grant of permission for a special or super supplementary examination, the FCC annulled the SHC’s ruling.

In his detailed judgment, Justice Aamer Farooq observed that judges are required to decide cases in accordance with the law rather than emotions and that courts cannot replace the law with morality or sympathy.

The court held that since no law, rule, or regulation permits special or super supplementary examinations, high courts cannot issue directions based on compassion, equality, or personal sentiments.

The FCC further observed that judicial decisions cannot be founded on personal beliefs or political considerations, adding that judicial credibility lies not in emotional rulings but in strict adherence to the law.

The judgment emphasised that judges are not private individuals but impartial adjudicators, and that prioritising sympathy over legal duty amounts to a deviation from the judicial office.

The court also noted that Pakistan is a state governed by the Constitution rather than by individuals, that high courts themselves are creations of the Constitution, and that the country’s constitutional journey has always remained within legal boundaries, with unchecked discretion or personal goodwill having no place in the constitutional framework.

Reporter: Amanat Gishkori