Precedent

--- Arts. 199, 4 & 189 --- Right to be dealt in accordance with law --- Judicial discipline --- Role of precedent --- Scope --- The High Courts are themselves a creation of the Constitution, and our constitutional journey has always unfolded within the discipline of law, not within a realm governed by personal goodwill or unchecked authority --- Even in moments where the law appears to be silent, we are not allowed to substitute legal command with individual morality or compassion --- In such rare instances, should they arise, the duty of the Courts remains to seek an answer that best resonates with our constitutional order, guided by sound constitutional principles and our 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.

--- Arts. 189 & 201 --- Judicial precedent --- Nature of common law --- Stare Decisis --- Scope --- Indeed, common law is valid because it depicts the opinion of learned Justices; a procession of sages and savants --- Under our constitutional framework, Article 201 provides that decisions of a High Court, to the extent that they decide a question of law or lay down a principle of law, are binding on all subordinate courts --- This provision, however, operates subject to Article 189, which establishes that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts subordinate to it, including the High Courts --- Similarly, the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, are binding on every court in the country, including both the Supreme Court and the High Courts --- Federal Constitutional Court is not bound by jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court (though it does not in any way mean that the jurisprudence of Supreme Court developed over years is now nullified, it remains valid unless overruled by this Court) --- Within its own constitutional domain, this Court is fully competent to interpret the law.

--- Public character of judgments --- Departure from earlier view --- Scope --- When a judgment is declared a public record, it is offered openly to the people of Pakistan, to be read, examined, and judged in the court of public reason --- This openness is itself an expression of judicial accountability --- A judgment, once delivered, must remain open to debate, to disagreement, and even to criticism, for it is through such dialogue that the law evolves --- There is no fault in a later court adopting a different view; the law is not diminished by acknowledging that an earlier understanding may have been flawed.

--- Declaration that judgment not to operate as precedent --- Impermissibility --- Judicial accountability --- Uncertainty and arbitrariness --- Limitation matters --- Waiver on compassionate grounds --- Limits of judicial discretion --- Scope --- When a court, at the moment it decides a case, tries to limit the reach of its own ruling by stating that it should not serve as a precedent for the future, while still recognizing a right in the case before it, the court withdraws from responsibility for the broader consequences of its judgment. Such self-imposed insulation suggests a decision unwilling to face public scrutiny, academic engagement, or the test of legal principles. So, the consequence is not restraint, but uncertainty. Allowing such a practice would invite uncertainty and encourage judicial arbitrariness. In many cases before the Supreme Court and lower courts, issues of limitation are raised, and lawyers often seek relaxation on compassionate grounds. What restrains courts from adopting an overly lenient approach in such cases is the concern that disregarding limitation periods would create improper judicial precedents. We note that it would be easy to say that the limitation period is waived due to the unique facts of a case and that the decision should not apply to future cases. However, this approach would give judges unchecked discretion to decide cases as they please and then avoid accountability simply by declaring that their rulings are not to be followed as precedent.

--- Judicial function --- Adherence to previously declared rules --- Scope --- What distinguishes judges from others who serve this nation, is their commitment to abide by the rules and principles they have previously pronounced, in accordance with the established doctrine of stare decisis.