Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan

Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan

199. Jurisdiction of High Court.— (1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,—

(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order—

(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or

(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or

(b) on the application of any person, make an order—

(i) directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner; or

(ii) requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office; or

(c) on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person or authority, including any Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II.

(1A) For removal of doubt, the High Court shall not make an order or give direction or make a declaration on its own or in the nature of suo motu exercise of jurisdiction beyond the contents of any application filed under clause (1).

(2) Subject to the Constitution, the right to move a High Court for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II shall not be abridged.

(3) An order shall not be made under clause (1) on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces, in respect of his terms and conditions of service, in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or as a person subject to such law.

(4) Where—

(a) an application is made to a High Court for an order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of clause (1), and

(b) the making of an interim order would have the effect of prejudicing or interfering with the carrying out of a public work or of otherwise being harmful to public interest or State property or of impeding the assessment or collection of public revenues,

the Court shall not make an interim order unless the prescribed law officer has been given notice of the application and he or any person authorised by him in that behalf has had an opportunity of being heard and the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that the interim order—

(i) would not have such affect as aforesaid; or

(ii) would have the effect of suspending an order or proceeding which on the face of the record is without jurisdiction.

(4A) An interim order made by a High Court on an application made to it to question the validity or legal effect of any order made, proceeding taken or act done by any authority or person, which has been made, taken or done or purports to have been made, taken or done under any law which is specified in Part I of the First Schedule or relates to, or is connected with, State property or assessment or collection of public revenues shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months following the day on which it is made :

Provided that, for reasons to be recorded, an interim order may be extended only for a period upto six months.

(4B) Every case in which, on an application under clause (1), the High Court has made an interim order shall be disposed of by the High Court on merits within six months from the day on which it is made, unless the High Court is prevented from doing so for sufficient cause to be recorded.

(5) In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,—

“person” includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Federal Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan; and

“prescribed law officer” means—

(a) in relation to an application affecting the Federal Government or an authority of or under the control of the Federal Government, the Attorney-General, and

(b) in any other case, the Advocate-General for the Province in which the application is made.

— Art. 199 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Judicial review of legislation — Inherent powers of High Court — Scope — Through a long line of precedents and the development of common law, High Courts have derived their power of judicial review as an inherent feature of the constitutional framework — As guardians and protectors of the Constitution, they possess, under Article 8 read along with Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of 1973, the authority to scrutinize legislation on the touchstone of fundamental rights — Even in situations where no specific fundamental right is directly involved, this does not divest the High Courts of the power to invalidate legislation that is ultra vires; they continue to hold, under our constitutional scheme, the inherent authority to declare the law ultra vires, if it is in conflict with any provision of the Constitution, 1973 directly or indirectly — Indeed, common law is valid because it depicts the opinion of learned Justices; a procession of sages and savants — When we speak of the High Court’s “inherent power”, the question then arises: how do we arrive at this conclusion that the power is inherent in the High Courts? — A closer examination shows that the oath taken by judges is not a mere formality — Its wording clearly binds the judges to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan” — This indicates that the oath is directed not towards protecting statutes (although this certainly does not mean that the laws enacted by Parliament are not to be followed or upheld), but specifically toward safeguarding the Constitution itself — If a judge of the High Court is faced with a situation in which a statute conflicts with the Constitution, then the question arises: how can he truly ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution if he is unable to strike down the impugned law? — The reality is that he cannot — The moment a judge bows to a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution, he turns his oath into nothing more than words recited before assuming office — Therefore, it is inherent in the jurisdiction and duty of the High Court to strike down laws that are ultra vires to the Constitution, 1973. [2026 CJ Review 2]

— Art. 199 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Writ of certiorari — Scope — A writ of certiorari, that is more or less envisaged in article 199(1)(a)(ii), may be issued against any individual performing functions connected with the affairs of the Federal, Provincial, or local authorities — It is not necessary that such a person be acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity — The High Court is empowered to intervene whenever an act or proceeding is undertaken in violation of the law or any well-established legal principle. [2026 CJ Review 2]

— Arts. 199 & 4 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Right of individuals to be dealt in accordance with law — Scope — No authority acting legally could be refrained by the courts from acting until the vires of the law has been determined by the Courts — It is either that the law that is ultra vires, which causes its operation to be extinguished, or it operates in its full might. [2026 CJ Review 2]

— Arts. 199 & 189 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Laches — Void ab initio order — No limitation against violation of binding judgment of the Supreme Court — Scope — Delay or laches in filing constitutional petitions before High Court does not create a bar where the impugned order is void ab initio and without lawful authority — Even if a writ petition is filed after considerable lapse of time, the High Court is legally justified in entertaining and deciding the matter on merits where the order under challenge has been passed in patent violation of the binding law declared by the Supreme Court — An order passed in disregard of the final judgment of the Supreme Court and in violation of Article 189 is without jurisdiction and void from its inception, against which no period of limitation runs. [2026 CJ Review 1]

— Suo motu jurisdiction — Scope — The Constitution does not envision that the courts are bestowed with unfettered powers that can be exercised within the disguise of judicial review — The judicial power is the power that is defined by the Constitution and law — It may vary from one institution to the other, such as Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is distinct from that of the High Court — However, the underlying principle remains that the judicial review of legislative and executive actions is not an unlimited or unbridled authority of the courts but the one circumscribed or confided by the Constitution and the law — The gateway to invoke judicial review of the High Court is only when there is an application or appeal by the aggrieved or affected party — In the absence of any such application, the High Court may enter into the domain of judicial overreach, which is the exercise of power without any legal basis and the same falls within the ambit of interference and encroachment on the legislative and executive domain — Consequently, such absolute judicial expansionism offends the principle of separation of powers. [PLR 2025 SC 2 = PLD 2025 SC 11 = 2024 SCP 386]

— Suo motu jurisdiction — Scope — High Courts do not have suo motu jurisdiction and as such it cannot assume suo motu jurisdiction by overreaching or overstretching its constitutional limits — It is constitutionally impermissible for the courts to expand and enlarge their jurisdictional domain, which is neither allowed by the Constitution nor by the law. [PLR 2025 SC 2 = PLD 2025 SC 11 = 2024 SCP 386]

— Relief beyond prayer — Scope — High Court cannot grant a relief, which is not even sought in the petition — In writ proceedings, the relief must be confined to the prayer made in the writ petition and the High Court cannot issue a writ suo motu. [PLR 2025 SC 2 = PLD 2025 SC 11 = 2024 SCP 386]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Policy decisions — Scope — Though Constitutional Courts cannot and should not interfere in policy making which is exclusive domain of the elected Government (executive), yet Courts can interfere or at least observe, where policy making infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. [2024 CLS 21 = 2024 CLC 171 = 2023 LHC 4155]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Conceding statement of Law Officer — Effect — Not only a Law Officer is debarred from making a conceding statement before the Court, unless written instructions are available with him, but it is also mandatory to produce an officer not below the rank of Grade-17 to appear before the Court and verify and reiterate the same — The sensitivity of the matter can be further gauged from the fact that it is also obligatory on part of the Court to record presence of such officer in the order and to make the written instructions part of the record of the Court. [2024 CLS 8 = 2024 CLC 71 = 2021 LHC 5343]

— Availing remedy in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court — Laches — Scope — By 2010, the respondent had been superseded, and this supersession had not been challenged within a reasonable time — The constitutional petition filed by the respondent before the High Court had suffered from laches — Furthermore, the right that the respondent had asserted and continued to assert, to be granted proforma promotion for which there was no provision in the relevant service rule, was coupled with the fact that the respondent had already retired from service and received all his benefits due to him under the law — As such, it was found that interference by the High Court in the matter at the stage it interfered was not supported either by the relevant law or by any of the rules governing the terms and conditions of employees of the petitioner/Bank — Therefore, the impugned judgment was found to be unsustainable — Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the same was allowed. [2024 SCLR 37 = 2024 SCMR 12]

— Writ of quo warranto — Scope — For the purpose of maintaining a writ of quo warranto there is no requirement of an aggrieved person, and before a person can claim this relief he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority — Granting relief in the nature of quo warranto is within the discretionary power of the superior courts and this relief cannot be allowed as a matter of course, rather the conduct and the bona fides of the petitioner, the cause and the object of filing such petition is also of considerable importance, which is to be examined. [PLR 2024 Lahore 4 = 2023 LHC 5587 = PLD 2024 Lahore 54]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Scope — The authority of the Supreme Court to hear a matter cannot be stultified only because a petitioner has an alternative remedy before the High Court. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

— Constitutional jurisdiction — Scope — A right of appeal is a right of entering into a superior court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the forum below — It is essentially a continuation of the original proceedings as a vested right of the litigant to avail the remedy of an appeal provided for appraisal and testing the soundness of the decisions and proceedings of the courts below — It is always explicated and elucidated that the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right — While considering matters in appeal, the appellate courts may affirm, modify, reverse or vacate the decision of lower courts — Fundamentally, the remedy of appeal is elected on the grounds of attack that the court below committed a serious error in the verdict on law and facts, including the plea of misreading or non-reading of evidence led by the parties in support of their contention — It is the duty of the Court and Tribunal to adhere to the applicable law in letter and spirit — It is the foremost duty of the appellate court to determine whether the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties for and against during the trial fortifies and adds force to the weight of decision or not — No doubt the Trial Court possesses the distinctive position to adjudge the trustworthiness of witnesses and cumulative effect of evidence led in the lis and, in turn, the appellate court accords deference to the findings and such findings are not overturned unless found erroneous or defective — It is not the domain or function of appellate court and/or High Court to re-weigh or interpret the evidence, but they can examine whether the impugned judgment or order attains the benchmark of an unflawed judgment; and whether it is in consonance with the law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors apparent on the face of record — However, if the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora are found to be in violation of law or based on flagrant and obvious defect floating on the surface of record, then it cannot be treated as being so sacrosanct or sanctified that it cannot be reversed by the High Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction vested in it by Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as a corrective measure in order to satisfy and reassure whether the impugned decision is within the law or not and if it suffers any jurisdictional defect, in such set of circumstances, the High Court without being impressed or influenced by the fact that the matter reached the High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction in pursuit of the concurrent findings recorded below, can cure and rectify the defect. [2024 SCLR 30 = 2024 SCMR 164 = 2023 SCP 350]