ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that high courts have no business fixing the prices of livestock and dairy products.

It is a settled law that a high court does not have suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution compared to the Supreme Court, which has been conferred exclusive jurisdiction, observed Justice Ijazul Ahsan in a judgement he wrote. But, he stated, the high court passed a series of suo motu orders by imposing a ban on the export of dairy and poultry products.

The case at hand concerned the Sept 16, 2021 Peshawar High Court order of directing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government to devise policies to bring down the prices of livestock, dairy and poultry products and form a committee to review them under a formula whereby the rates of livestock by-products such as hide, viscera, feathers, legs/wings etc were deducted.

Justice Ahsan while heading a two-judge Supreme Court bench held that banning of imports or exports of products was not the domain of courts, but fell under the exclusive domain of the executive. The judgement said the high court should not have transgressed its jurisdiction under Article 199 by passing an order that not only amounted to exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, but also an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the executive.

Setting aside PHC order, apex court judge says high court encroached upon executive jurisdiction

The verdict said Article 184 of the Constitution provided that the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction vested only with the apex court. The high court did not cite any law or precedent on the basis of which it exercised the jurisdiction, it said, adding the high court was not competent to even fix prices of products.

The only recourse available to it, if necessary, was to direct the government to do what was required under the law in case its functionaries were not doing their job, the judgement maintained.

Likewise, the high court under Article 199 couldn’t devise a pricing formula since that was not permitted under the law and went against the principle of trichotomy of powers envisaged under the Constitution, Justice Ahsan observed.

He further wrote the high court order was not only against the mandate of Article 199, but also against settled principles of law, adding the court could not have provided a formula for the calculation of prices nor could it direct the formation of a pricing committee to implement the formula.

Such matters clearly related to the executive and ought to be left to the policy makers to regulate.

Even otherwise, Item No 27 of the Federal Legislative List clearly and categorically provided that import and export was a federal subject. Also, Section 3 of the Pakistan Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950 clearly stated that the power to prohibit or restrict imports and exports vested with the federal government. Directing the provincial government to do so did not have any legal or constitutional basis or sanction behind it, according to the judgement.

These provisions of law clearly stated that restriction or prohibition of imports and exports fell within the domain of the federal government. As such, the high court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by formulating a policy regarding pricing of goods or commodities and banning exports of livestock, poultry, dairy products or products derived therefrom.

Thus, the judgement stated, the SC was of the view that the high court had incorrectly applied the law and there were patent jurisdictional errors in its order that warranted interference. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the high court order.

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2023