ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has taken exception to the growing tendency of pronouncing judgements after keeping them reserved for a considerable time, leaving the rights of the parties in a state of uncertainty as they await the court’s opinion.

“Such delay compounds the hardship of litigants,” observed Justice Aamer Farooq in a judgement he authored, adding that such conduct on the part of the judiciary cannot be allowed and is strictly forbidden.

“The sanctity and confidentiality of our work stand as hallmarks of judicial independence. Any breach thereof warrants strict action and no one can be permitted to flout the rights of the people,” emphasised Justice Farooq, who headed a two-judge FCC bench that took up an appeal by the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation against the June 3, 2021 order of the Sindh High Court concerning post-retirement benefits.

While deciding the matter, the FCC also took notice of the petitioner’s grievance that the SHC judgement was delivered 10 months after the hearing — a delay it described as reflecting on the bench and amounting to a failure to administer justice expeditiously.

Judge observes delay compounds the hardship of litigants

In a system burdened with a backlog of cases, it is imperative that justice be administered expeditiously, without unnecessary delay, Justice Farooq observed in his seven-page judgement, noting that in the recent past there have been deviations from court rules and even settled practices. “It is essential for everyone, including judges, to adhere to these rules and practices in order to make the dispensation of justice certain and transparent.” he emphasised.

Since the FCC had addressed issues relating to reserved judgements and the judicial conduct connected therewith, a copy of the verdict should be circulated to the high courts for strict compliance and observance, Justice Farooq directed.

The FCC also expunged the concluding paragraph of the SHC judgement for being superfluous and amounting to an excess of jurisdiction, adding that, as far as the merits of the case were concerned, they required no interference.

The FCC recalled that the Supreme Court had in 2015 laid down that a judgement reserved by a high court should be pronounced within a period of three months (90 days), but regretted that the practice of reserving verdicts had evolved over time.

“We note that the efficacy of any legal system depends upon the expeditious disposal of cases according to law, and it is expected from all the courts of this country, including the FCC, the Supreme Court and the high courts, to follow the 2015 judgement in letter and spirit,” Justice Farooq observed.

In the 2015 case, the FCC recalled, the Supreme Court had held that without a judgement there is no concept of justice or a fruitful outcome of litigation, which, without fear of contradiction, means that the state lacks an effective justice system.

Thus, it is mandatory for trial courts to pronounce judgements within 30 days of the conclusion of a trial, while high courts are expected to decide matters within 90 days of reserving them, the FCC said.

Published in Dawn, May 5th, 2026