LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking wide-ranging directions regarding electricity loadshedding, gas shortages and energy sector governance, holding that courts cannot act as regulators or intervene in complex policy matters falling within the domain of specialised statutory bodies.

The court also imposed a punitive cost of Rs100,000 on the petitioner for filing what it termed a frivolous and unsubstantiated petition.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Khalid Ishaq observed that public interest litigation is a powerful legal tool that must be exercised with “great care, caution and circumspection.”

He warned that courts must remain vigilant to ensure that behind the “beautiful veil” of public interest there is no private malice, vested interest or publicity-seeking motive.

Dismisses PIL seeking directions for power, gas regulators; rules judicial restraint must be exercised in matters involving executive policy

The judge stressed that the judiciary has a duty to discourage such petitions so that the course of justice is not polluted or obstructed.

The judge noted that a genuine PIL must be founded on bona fide motives, serve a public purpose rather than private interests, and be supported by substantiated and verifiable facts.

Referring to precedents of the Supreme Court, the judge observed that speculative, hypothetical or malicious attacks on executive functions cannot be entertained under the guise of public interest litigation.

He further remarked that courts must distinguish between genuine PILs and petitions merely labelled as such for ulterior motives, including attempts to attract publicity or avoid statutory remedies.

Addressing the scope of judicial review, Justice Ishaq held that issues relating to electricity and gas pricing, procurement, distribution, regulatory oversight and energy policy involve technical, financial and administrative complexities that are best dealt with by specialised forums established under law.

He ruled that the high court cannot sit as a regulator or appellate body over institutions such as the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) and Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), nor can it substitute its own views for those of expert bodies unless actions are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or without jurisdiction.

The judge maintained that while courts may intervene to protect fundamental rights, judicial restraint must be exercised in matters involving executive policy.

He observed that unchecked judicial intervention in areas such as price control, procurement oversight and energy regulation could result in significant national and international repercussions.

The petition had been filed by the Judicial Activism Panel (JAP) against the federation, the Punjab government, Nepra, Ogra, electricity distribution companies and numerous other public authorities.

The petitioner sought declarations against electricity loadshedding and gas shortages, directions for uninterrupted energy supply to courts, hospitals and other public institutions, formulation of energy policies, constitution of inquiry commissions and accountability proceedings against officials allegedly responsible for the energy crisis.

However, the judge found that the petition was based on vague, generic and unsubstantiated allegations.

The judge noted that petitioner failed to avail statutory remedies available under the laws of Nepra and the Ogra.

Concluding that no case for interference had been made out, Justice Ishaq dismissed the petition and imposed punitive costs of Rs100,000, directing the amount to be deposited in the dispensary fund of the Lahore High Court Bar Association within 45 days.

“The order relating to imposition of cost shall remain stayed for a period of 30 days, enabling the petitioner to avail its remedy of appeal, if so advised,” the judgement said.

its remedy of appeal, if so advised,” the judgment said.

Reaction: Advocate Azhar Siddique, chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel (JAP), termed the ruling erroneous and maintained that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the matter.

He argued that the LHC had already delivered several judgments on the same legal questions and said the petition was filed in view of the ongoing energy crisis and the difficulties faced by consumers.

“There is widespread concern over the energy crisis and the plight of consumers. I merely brought the issue before the court,” he said.

He described the judgment as an attempt to strengthen the hands of the executive at the expense of judicial oversight.

“I can foresee more such judgments from the LHC in the coming days,” he claimed.

Announcing to file an appeal against the ruling, he urged the bar councils to take notice of the situation.

Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2026