Constitutional Bench says unwarranted judicial interference in administrative and policy matters amounts to judicial overreach.
The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has ruled that high courts do not possess suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, declaring that unnecessary judicial intervention in administrative and policy matters amounts to judicial overreach.
According to a detailed written judgment approved for reporting, a two-member Constitutional Bench comprising Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha partly allowed appeals challenging the Sindh High Court’s (SHC) orders issued on October 27 and November 3, 2025.
The bench set aside portions of those orders after concluding that the SHC had acted beyond the constitutional limits of its authority.
The Constitutional Bench observed that Article 199 empowers high courts to hear constitutional petitions but does not authorize them to initiate proceedings on their own. It held that the Sindh High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by commencing suo motu proceedings against police authorities and issuing directions relating to police policy guidelines.
During the proceedings, the Prosecutor General of Sindh argued that the SHC’s directives concerning arrest and detention procedures had relied on the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark D.K. Basu judgment delivered in 1996. However, he maintained that those principles had subsequently been replaced by Pakistan’s updated legal framework governing policing and custodial procedures.
The prosecutor informed the court that several Pakistani laws now regulate these matters, including the Police Order 2002, the Sindh Act No. XI of 2019, amendments to the Police Rules, 1934 made in 2021, the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022, along with standard operating procedures and directives issued by the Inspector General of Police, Sindh. As a result, he argued, the 1996 Indian guidelines no longer hold legal relevance in Pakistan.
The Advocate General Sindh also contended that the high court had crossed constitutional boundaries by interfering in executive policy matters. The Constitutional Bench agreed with this position, emphasizing that courts must remain within the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution.
In its ruling, the court declared that all observations and directions issued by the Sindh High Court beyond the scope of the original constitutional petition (lis) were legally unsustainable. However, it directed that inquiries and investigations against the petitioners should continue strictly in accordance with the law.
The court further instructed the relevant authorities to complete their proceedings independently and without being influenced by those portions of the Sindh High Court’s orders that were found to constitute judicial overreach.
