The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Tuesday declared that all executive and judicial authorities, including high courts across the country, are bound to act upon its directions under Article 187 of the Constitution. This ruling came in a judgment authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, which stated that the SC possesses the authority to issue such directions, orders, or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The constitutional power obligates all authorities to ensure effective implementation of statutory mandates for regulating the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The observations were made while hearing a matter where directions were sought for the completion of a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, within a 60-day period. A division bench comprising Justice Mandokhail and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan noted that the complaint had been filed in 2016, but Section 5(2) of the Act requires proceedings to be concluded within 60 days of the trial court taking cognisance. However, the trial court failed to perform its statutory obligation, prompting the SC to intervene.
Supreme Court's Directives
The court directed that every trial court seized of a complaint under the Act must complete proceedings within the 60-day timeframe specified under Section 5(2) and maintain a day-to-day order sheet. Where a trial cannot proceed on a scheduled date, the trial court must record sufficient reasons for the delay. The order clarified that bare references to non-availability of witnesses or adjournment sought by counsel do not constitute sufficient reasons. Additionally, adjournments should not be granted as a routine and must be based on justifiable reasons.
Monitoring and Compliance
The judgment directed members of inspection teams of respective high courts and directors general district judiciary to periodically monitor all cases pending under the Act, including the date of filing, date of taking cognisance, status of proceedings, and reasons for any delay exceeding 60 days. The court also ordered that complaints must be accompanied by a list of witnesses, and complainants must ensure their presence on every date fixed for recording statements. The accused and their counsel must also be present on every hearing date.
The bench held that if any party challenges an interim order before a higher forum, the trial court must continue proceedings unless a restraining order is passed. Copies of the order were directed to be transmitted to all high court registrars for information and strict compliance.
