Constitutional jurisdiction

--- Arts. 175E & 188 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability of petition against a final judgment of the Supreme Court --- Doctrine of finality and judicial discipline --- Scope --- Petitioner, having availed the remedy of appeal before the Supreme Court and thereafter the constitutional remedy of review under Article 188 (which was dismissed), invoked Article 184(3) --- The attempt is, in substance, to challenge a final judicial determination rendered by the apex Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction --- Petitioner has argued that the constitutional reconfiguration introduced by the 27th Amendment, particularly the incorporation of Article 175E(3), permits a broader examination --- However, constitutional provisions of similar nature, even after an amendment in the constitution, must be construed harmoniously within the structural framework of the Constitution --- Nothing in Article 175E(3) suggests that the Federal Constitutional Court is vested with a supervisory, review or appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in appeal and affirmed in review --- The jurisdiction continues to be conditioned upon the existence of a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights --- It cannot be transmuted into a collateral appellate mechanism --- If such a course were to be sanctioned, it would render Article 188 redundant and destabilize the doctrine of finality --- The Constitution does not envisage perpetual litigation --- Judicial discipline demands that there must be a terminus to adjudication --- The office objection, therefore, was grounded in constitutional principle and cannot be faulted.

--- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Writ for enforcement of fundamental rights --- Scope --- Article 199 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and public duties --- Actions of the State, its instrumentality, any public authority or person whose actions bear insignia of public law element or public character are amenable to judicial review and the validity of such an action would be tested on the anvil of the provisions of the Constitution and, in particular, the fundamental rights enshrined therein.

--- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Contractual dispute --- Scope --- Article 199 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and public duties --- Actions of the State, its instrumentality, any public authority or person whose actions bear insignia of public law element or public character are amenable to judicial review and the validity of such an action would be tested on the anvil of the provisions of the Constitution and, in particular, the fundamental rights enshrined therein --- However, when a dispute arises purely out of a contract, the courts have generally held that writ jurisdiction is not meant to settle private contractual rights, especially when an alternate civil remedy exists --- While exercising the power under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court would be circumspect to adjudicate the disputes arising out of a contract depending on the facts and circumstances in a given case --- After the State or its agents enter into the field of the ordinary contract, the relations are governed by the provisions of the contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se.

--- Art. 199 --- Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983), Arts. 9, 29 & 32 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib --- Scope --- The remedy provided under Article 32 is undoubtedly a statutory recourse available to an aggrieved party; however, it does not operate as an absolute bar to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, particularly where the impugned order is ex facie contrary to Article 9 or has been passed without jurisdiction.

--- Art. 199 --- Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983), Arts. 9 & 29 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib --- Scope --- A constitutional court may interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution where an order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib suffers from want or excess of jurisdiction, is coram non judice, or has been passed in violation of the law.

--- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Factual controversy --- Scope --- The extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is intended to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy in cases where the illegality or impropriety of an impugned action is apparent on the face of the record and can be determined without undertaking an elaborate inquiry or recording evidence --- However, where the controversy involves intricate, disputed, or contentious questions of fact, the resolution of which necessitates the recording and appraisal of evidence by the parties, such matters fall within the domain of courts of plenary jurisdiction, and the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, cannot assume the role of a fact-finding forum or enter into such factual controversies.

--- Arts. 199 & 4 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Right to be dealt in accordance with law --- Equitable jurisdiction --- Writ of mandamus --- Scope --- A question has arisen before Federal Constitutional Court concerning the scope and exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, particularly in relation to the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction --- High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, issued a writ of mandamus directing the University to hold a “super/supplementary examination” for the student, notwithstanding the absence of any law, rule, or regulation requiring the conduct of such an examination --- Federal Constitutional Court observed that the High Courts are not vested with the authority to exercise such powers, as every case must be adjudicated strictly in accordance with the law and not on considerations of compassion, equity or whims of a judge.

--- Arts. 199 & 187 --- Power to do "complete justice" --- Federal Constitutional Court and Supreme Court powers --- Limits of High Court jurisdiction --- Scope --- The only power of compassion that might exist or may not exist is only conferred on the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court under Article 187 of the Constitution and that too is different from the “scope and ambit” of High Court under Article 199, which can only exercise the power conferred on it by law or Constitution --- Despite having the power of rendering “complete justice” we do not lose our status as courts of law and still have to act within our broad constitutional fabric and judicial precedents.

--- Arts. 187, 189 & 199 --- Power to do “complete justice” --- Limits on jurisdiction of High Court --- Scope --- Constitution does not permit the High Courts to do complete justice or do compassion --- They in any form of their jurisdiction are strictly bound by law and under doctrine of stare decisis by decisions of the Courts superior to them.

--- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Writ of mandamus --- Scope --- The very language of a writ of mandamus denotes a command issued to a person or authority requiring the performance of a duty which the law obliges him or her to perform and which has been unlawfully omitted.

--- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Enforcement of fundamental rights --- Scope --- Notwithstanding the wide ambit of jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c), the High Court’s remain bound by the limits of their constitutional mandate and cannot, in our considered view, grant relief solely on the basis of compassion or equitable considerations in the absence of legal sanction --- Any direction issued must strictly conform to the express provisions of law and remain within the bounds of judicial authority.

--- Arts. 175-F & 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Recruitment --- Scope of judicial interference --- The petitioner applied for appointment as a Constable in the Punjab Police pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment against open merit --- After provisional approval by the Recruitment Board, he was referred for medical and physical fitness examination --- The medical report revealed that the petitioner’s visual acuity in one eye was 6/6, while in the other eye it was CF @ 1M, which was below the prescribed criteria --- Consequently, he was declared medically unfit for appointment as a Constable and denied recruitment --- Petitioner contended that denial of appointment was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly when serving police officials with physical limitations were performing office duties --- The respondents argued that such officials were recruited after being declared medically fit and were not comparable to the petitioner, who failed to meet the basic fitness requirement at the threshold --- Validity --- Medical fitness, particularly eyesight standards prescribed under the Police Rules, was an essential qualification for recruitment, especially in a disciplined force like the police --- Since the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory visual acuity criteria and had not applied under any disability quota, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition while making certain advisory observations.