ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Friday regretted the non-implementation of an earlier Supreme Court judgment in the sacked employees case, underlining that disregarding or delaying the implementation of the latter’s verdicts by the government amounts to “challenging the very framework of the legal system”.

The observation came while hearing a set of contempt of court petitions against the Punjab government, as well as the federal government, for not implementing the Dec 17, 2021 SC judgement — a verdict which had converted the review hearings to the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) only to safeguard the fundamental right to livelihood of a number of sacked government employees.

Subsequently, review petitions were instituted against the 2021 judgement that had rendered almost 17,000 government employees jobless by holding as illegal and unconstitutional a PPP-era law, known as the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act 2010 (SERA), under which thousands of people were employed or promoted.

On Friday, FCC judge, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, emphasised that the orders of the SC, as the then-apex court before the 27th Constitutional Amendment, were “not merely recommendations or advisories but they are legal mandate that must be followed”.

Justice Najafi was a member of a three-judge bench, which was headed by FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, that had taken up a set of contempt of court petitions on the non-implementation of the SC judgement.

In a ten-page order, Justice Najafi observed that the decisions of the SC were the culmination of “vigorous legal scrutiny and deliberation intended to reflect upon the values and laws of the land”.

“It is imperative to underline that in a constitution democracy the rule of law is not just a principle but the foundation upon which the legitimacy of and the good governance in any system of government rests,” Justice Najafi observed.

“The SC, being the apex court of the country, was entrusted with performing the responsibility of interpreting the law, ensuring justice and upholding the Constitution,” the judge observed.

“The orders of the Supreme Court, as the then apex court, are not merely recommendations or advisories but they are legal mandates that must be followed.

“And compliance with the judicial decision is not a matter of courtesy but a constitutional requirement, the non-compliance of which not only disturbs the delicate equilibrium between the prestige of the court and the enforcement of rights but also sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to an executive overreach,” Justice Najafi emphasised.

“Besides, the implementation of these orders is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. If their decisions can be easily ignored or set aside by the individuals or entities, public trust in the efficacy of the judiciary and the entire government is seriously undermined,” the judge emphasised.

“Consequently, the erosion of trust in the judicial system may lead to undermining the democratic system,” the judgement held.

Reverting to the case, the FCC noted that the SC judgement required that the beneficiary employees would have to undergo relevant tests applicable to their post to be conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) within three months.

To take aptitude, scholastic, or skill tests was the responsibility of the employer, and if it was not conducted, it would not be considered a fault of the employees, who never refused to appear in the test until today, the judgement said.

Admittedly, the employees were granted employment by one government, terminated by another government, reinstated into service by a government and then the Act of 2010 reinstating such employees was declared unlawful by the SC, and in all these situations, employees had committed no fault, the judge emphasised.

If an offer to take the test is not made, the employees could not be put at any disadvantageous position so as to deny the benefit of the said order now sought to be implemented, Justice Najafi maintained.

“We therefore hold that the conditions so imposed by the SC on the beneficiary employees were waived/diluted by the respondent-department due to the afflux of time and lethargy on their part and not for any fault of the employees.

“Such conduct cannot be awarded with any sentence of appreciation by FCC,” Justice Najafi said.

“The inaction on the part of the employers was marked with caution, persuading us to show our concern to a sorry state of affairs,” he cautioned.

• Court upholds FST order reinstating 40 officers linked to 2023 boat capsize off Greece
• Agency argues tribunal overturned sackings on technicalities; three-judge bench directs agency to fulfil requirements of due process

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for the Fe­­deral Investigation Agency (FIA) to reopen a departmental inquiry against officials allegedly linked to the fatal 2023 Greek migrant boat capsize tragedy.

However, the court rejected the FIA’s appeal against an April 14 Federal Service Tribunal (FST) ruling, upholding the order to reinstate the dismissed FIA officers.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Maz­har, took up appeals moved by the Dire­c­to­rate General Federal Investiga­tion Age­ncy (FIA) challenging the FST order.

Pursuant to the Greece boat tragedy of 2023, FIA had penalised and dismissed 40 officers who were found to have allegedly facilitated the human smuggling of vulnerable individuals.

Around 286 people departed from Libya, of whom 155 were killed when the boat capsized off the coast of Greece.

Representing FIA, Deputy Attorney General Raja Shafqat Abbasi argued that the FST had set aside the dismissal orders merely on technical and procedural lapses, such as the non-compliance of procedure and a lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

He argued that officers posted at the time at the Lahore, Karachi and Multan airports were under a statutory duty under their job descriptions to properly scrutinise tickets, passports, visas and the purpose of the visits to Libya, noting it was a war-torn country rather than a tourist destination.

It was the duty of the officers to apply their minds as to why more than 286 persons were travelling to Libya from different airports of the country, Mr Abbasi said.

The counsel submitted that there was at least gross omission and negligence, amounting to direct facilitation on the part of these officials, which enabled human smugglers to traffic innocent citizens from Pakistan to Libya and onward to Europe via a sea route.

This led to the deaths of 155 Pakistanis and caused serious damage to the image of Pakistan internationally, he added.

Mr Abbasi contended that if there was any procedural lapse in holding the departmental inquiry, the accused officials were not entitled to a “clean chit” of reinstatement in the job.

At most, a fresh opportunity should be given to the FIA to conduct a de novo in­­quiry after providing a due opportunity for hearing and cross-examination, so that appropriate action may be taken aga­inst those found responsible in accor­da­nce with the law, the counsel contended.

Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the FIA to initiate a fresh inquiry, if they deem it fit, in accordance with the law against the officials for whom evidence was on the record, after giving the officials an opportunity for a hearing.

Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday regretted the course adopted by a bench of the Supreme Court on an already determined matter by describing the approach as “something that raises serious concerns regarding judicial discipline, legal norms and institutional propriety”.

“The course adopted in the subsequent order, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, raises serious concerns regarding judicial discipline, legal norms and institutional propriety, particularly when the earlier determination remained operative and was already the subject of review proceedings,” observed FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan in his order.

A two-judge FCC bench, comprising Justice Aminuddin and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, had taken up dozens of review petitions against a Dec 28, 2021 SC judgment, whereby leave to appeal was refused in a batch of petitions arising out of Sindh High Court’s 2020 order concerning the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act 2013.

The two-judge SC bench had upheld that the Income Support Levy Act, having been enacted through the Finance Act 2013 without observance of the legislative procedure prescribed by the Constitution, did not acquire the status of a valid law.

The bench comprised Justice Aminuddin — who now heads the FCC formed under the 26th Amendment — and Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who went on to become the SC chief justice in 2023. Justice Isa penned the judgment.

Despite the 2021 decision and the pendency of the present review petitions, a subsequent three-judge SC bench, including Justice Akhtar, through its June 21, 2022 order, granted leave on substantially identical constitutional questions and expressly contemplated reconsideration of the earlier determination.

In his judgment, the FCC chief justice also criticised the SC’s subsequent conduct by describing the development as an aspect of institutional significance concerning judicial discipline and consistency of judicial pronouncements.

Justice Aminuddin recalled that the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act had already been examined by the two-judge SC bench in the ‘Commissioner Inland Revenue versus Muhammad Mustafa Gigi’ case in which the appeal was refused.

The FCC top judge went on to express “serious concerns” over the 2022 SC ruling by Justice Akhtar.

“It is a settled principle that coordinate or subsequent benches must accord due regard to earlier judicial determinations and any departure therefrom must conform to the established principles governing judicial precedent and the prescribed institutional procedure,” he stated.

Although refusal of leave does not invariably preclude consideration of a distinct petition, a subsequent grant of leave cannot, by itself, operate to review, modify or displace an earlier determination, ruled the FCC.

Judicial independence must be exercised consistently with judicial discipline, restraint and institutional decorum, the FCC chief justice stressed.

He added that the course adopted in the subsequent proceedings, insofar as it contemplated reconsideration of the 2021 judgment, “without recourse to the appropriate judicial mechanism, was inconsistent with these requirements”.

“We reiterate that adherence to judicial discipline is indispensable to maintaining certainty, consistency and the institutional integrity of judicial adjudication,” Justice Aminuddin observed.

Referring to the present review petitions, he noted that the 2021 SC judgment under review does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or other fundamental defect warranting interference in review jurisdiction.

The constitutional questions raised therein were duly examined and determined, and no sufficient legal ground was established for their reconsideration, Justice Aminuddin observed.

Consequently, the instant review petitions were dismissed, and the Dec 28, 2021 judgment “shall remain undisturbed”.

The FCC order recalled that the principal controversy determined by the 2021 SC ruling concerned the constitutional character of the Income Support Levy introduced through the Finance Act 2013, and whether the legislation imposing such levy could validly be enacted as a Money Bill within the contemplation of Article 73(2) of the Constitution.

Upon consideration of these provisions, it concluded that the levy, notwithstanding its financial implications, did not fall within the constitutional classification of a Money Bill and that its enactment was consequently required to undergo the ordinary legislative procedure involving both Houses of Parliament.

“The distinction between a Money Bill and ordinary legislation is substantive and reflects the constitutional allocation of legislative authority between the two Houses of Parliament,” the FCC noted.

It said that Article 73 (procedure with respect to Money Bill) constituted a “limited exception to the ordinary legislative procedure” prescribed under Article 70 (introduction and passing of bills) and cannot be expanded “merely by characterising a legislative measure as a levy or incorporating it into a Finance Act”.