ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled on Thursday that directions by superior courts to high courts for the expeditious disposal of pending matters should be issued sparingly and couched in appropriate terms.

The judgement came against the backdrop of a recent petition filed by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) before the Supreme Court, challenging its May 12, 2026, direction to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide within two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in a controversial social media post case.

The NCCIA had also requested the SC to recall and withdraw the order to preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintain equality among citizens and avoid discrimination”.

According to a three-page order authored by Justice Aamer Farooq in a dispute between the Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco) and Master Tiles and Ceramics Industries Ltd, the court held that high courts had their independent roster and case management systems, along with policies for the fixation of cases.

The petitioner, Gepco, challenged the IHC’s July 10, 2025, order before the FCC, contending that the Attorney General’s Office was not competent to give consent on its behalf during proceedings before the IHC, as the power company was an independent entity that had the right to be represented in a court of law by counsel of its own choice.

On the other hand, Master Tiles and Ceramics, the respondent, argued that it was not its fault that the Attorney General’s Office gave its consent. However, it submitted that if the FCC was inclined to remit the matter back to the IHC, an appropriate direction for the expeditious disposal of the case should also be given.

Justice Farooq, who headed the two-member FCC bench alongside Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, eventually set aside the IHC order and directed that the writ petitions filed by Master Tiles would be deemed pending before the IHC.

The FCC added that it was “expected that the case shall be taken up at the earliest, keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter”. In the judgement, Justice Farooq held that the constitutional scheme of judicature suggested that there were five independent high courts in the country created under the Constitution.

“The high court, so created, is an independent constitutional court and is not subordinate to either the SC or FCC; however, in the scheme of arrangement, district judiciary and such other courts are subordinate to the respective high court as per Article 203 of the Constitution,” it said.

“All decisions of the high court are challengeable before the SC or the FCC, which does not make the referred court subordinate in any manner,” he observed.

“Even otherwise, generally directions issued are administrative in nature rather than judicial, where even a high court issues directions to the trial courts/subordinate courts, the same are administrative in nature and do not warrant any consequence but are recommendatory, asking the courts to take up the matter in priority keeping in view the urgent nature of the case,” Justice Farooq explained.

Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2026