The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has rescinded the earlier legal directive to demolish Islamabad’s Pir Sohawa Monal Restaurant.
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, presiding over the three-member bench, accepted the appeals of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI), giving essential guidance for the current and future proceedings.
The FCC judgement key directives are as follows:
The constitutional court clarified the jurisdiction, the legality of documents and the function of the subordinate courts:
Trial Courts: The court held that any and all ownership and land disputes after the event should be assessed in accordance with the relevant trial courts. Such courts are supposed to decide cases, without relying on previous opinions, merely on the evidence, the records of the lands and the law.
Administrative Governance: The bench said administrative and regulatory issues are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the relevant government authorities and regulatory bodies.
Expedited Proceedings: Subordinate courts have been instructed to expedite pending cases to ensure that the process does not unnecessarily delay the provision of a legal remedy and that the process does not, therefore, add to extended litigation complications.
The judgement of the court cannot be based on the general opinion of the public or on the wishes of any one petitioner interested in the case; it must be decided only within the bounds of the constitution, of established law and of the official records.
— Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Observations During the Hearing
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, in the course of the hearing, pointed out several important aspects of the law that had been missed in the earlier judgement. He pointed out that a constitutional court’s foremost duty is that “all legal and constitutional questions must be examined in a comprehensive manner so that the verdict is based on firm legal bases.”
While speaking to legal counsellors present in the court, Justice Rizvi highlighted that the court’s rulings are only influenced by well-argued cases, facts and precedents, but not by unnecessary flattery. He emphasised that final written orders need to be limited to issues that actually occurred in the court’s formal proceedings.
Lawyers say the precedent-setting decision marks another clear dividing line between how property disputes are resolved in court and how they are handled by executive authorities.
