ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court has held that high courts are bound to deliver reserved decisions within 90 days, and that failure to issue a judgment within the prescribed period constitutes a violation of the law.
A two-member bench of the Federal Constitutional Court, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan Bareech, announced the judgment in an appeal concerning delays in announcing reserved verdicts and violations of judicial rules.
The court had completed hearing the appeal on February 19, 2026, against a Sindh High Court judgment in the case titled Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC) vs. Nasir Kamal. The Supreme Court has already laid down that a judgment reserved by the High Court should be pronounced within a period of three months (90 days), states the seven-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq.
While issuing important legal guidelines for the future, the court declared that a judge is obligated to announce the decision in open court within the stipulated time, ensure its confidentiality and sanctity, and limit the relief strictly to what has been requested by the petitioner. The delay in justice undermines public confidence in the judicial system, the judgment states.
Referring to the MFMY Industries case, the judgment clarified that a High Court must announce a reserved decision within 90 days. If, due to complexity, there is a delay in issuing the judgment, the case should be fixed again for hearing; however, in any event, the decision must be announced within 120 days.
The court held that until a judge signs a decision and announces it in open court, it remains merely a draft . If the contents of a reserved judgment are disclosed or leaked before its formal announcement, the judge s opinion shall be considered void, and the matter will be referred for rehearing before another bench. The court emphasised that the rules of the Supreme Court and High Courts are not merely procedural guidelines but have the force of law, and both judges and court staff are bound to comply with them.
The court ordered that copies of this judgment be sent to all high courts. The court noted that, in a system burdened with a growing backlog of cases, timely justice is the only solution, and strict action will be taken against those responsible for breaching judicial confidentiality.
In the present case, the FCC ermed the 10-month delay an undesirable practice and observed that it raises serious questions about judicial performance. It is noteworthy that, while deciding this appeal against a 2021 Sindh High Court judgment, the court upheld the High Court s position that payment of pension is a fundamental human right, and that illegality in service rules cannot be used as a barrier in such matters. However, the court struck down those directions of the High Court that were of a general nature and beyond its jurisdiction, particularly where no such relief had been sought by the petitioner.
The court noted that the High Court addressed the issue of the writ petition s maintainability by observing that the matter concerns the payment of pension, which constitutes a fundamental right; therefore, the non-statutory nature of the relevant rules is considered immaterial. In our view, this observation of the High Court did make certain general observations by way of direction to the petitioner-Corporation, and they find mention in paragraph-17, in the following manner:
For future as well as for cases pending for calculation and/or payment of post-retirement benefits, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation is further directed to ensure compliance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Haji Muhammad Ismael Advocate and Province of Punjab, through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad, in letter and spirit. We feel that the learned High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making the referred observations, as the same amounts to a suo motu exercise of writ jurisdiction, inasmuch as no relief was sought by respondent No. 1 with respect thereto, the judgment states.
The court agreed with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above observations needed to be expunged. For the above reasons, the instant petition is disposed of by way of expungement of the above-mentioned remarks by the learned High Court in the concluding paragraph, whereas no interference is required as far as merit and maintainability are concerned. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused, the judgment concluded.
