ISLAMABAD:
Judges of the Supreme Court are not passive interpreters of text, rather they are the custodians of liberty, equality, and institutional independence.
“[The Supreme Court] is the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights and the final sentinel against executive or legislative overreach,” said a 15-page judgement authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and endorsed by Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi, who is also a member of the constitutional bench.
According to the verdict, SC judges are to act with integrity and courage, to resist all encroachments, external or internal, that threaten to erode the autonomy of the judiciary or subvert the rule of law.
“The judges must not fall prey to the lure of small, short-term benefits, whether of elevation, power, or personal comfort that may accrue if they speak the language of authority rather than that of the Constitution. Such benefits are illusory and transient.
‘The true reward of a judge lies in preserving the dignity of the institution and the trust of the people. It is also the solemn duty of judges of this Court to call out, with moral clarity and institutional courage, those among their ranks who surrender to the power of the day at the cost of constitutional principles.
“Critique from within, when rooted in fidelity to the Constitution, is not disloyalty, it is the highest form of service to the judicial institution,” the verdict added.
The division bench led by Justice Shah dismissed a petition filed by the Federal Public Service Commission which rejected the fresh appointment of a female civil servant on the post of assistant professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) just because she changed her domicile after marriage.
Highlighting the “real role” of the Supreme Court and its judges in the last two pages of decision, Justice Shah noted that history is a vigilant witness which does not remember those who accommodate power, but those who stand resolute in defense of principle.
“The jurisprudential legacy of a judge is not built on appeasement but on principled defiance when the soul of justice is imperiled. Courts must never become tools of expediency. Rather, they must be lighthouses of constitutional morality and guardians of democratic integrity,” he said.
Justice Shah stated that history will not absolve judges who abandon their constitutional duty; it will remember them not as dispensers of justice, but as collaborators in injustice.
He noted that the Supreme Court is not merely a forum for resolving disputes; it is the constitutional conscience of the nation, tasked with producing progressive and principled jurisprudence that breathes life into the Constitution and bridges the distance between law and the lived realities of the people.
“The court must remain alive to the evolving aspirations of society and innovate new remedies to advance justice,” says the judgement.
The case
The court held that a married woman retains the legal discretion, choice or agency to either adopt her husband’s domicile or retain her own. In the present case, the respondent, by her own volition, opted to adopt her husband’s domicile, which is legally permissible.
“It is also important to note that permitting the change of domicile may affect the mechanism of transfer and seniority as well.
“Disregarding seniority undermines bureaucratic impartiality, violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equality (Article 4 and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and breeds cynicism within the service. The erosion of seniority norms weakens administrative stability.
“Allowing post-induction changes in domicile would not only undermine the quota system but also open avenues for manipulation, enabling individuals to shift provincial affiliation for personal advantage, thereby diluting the constitutional promise of provincial parity.
“The freezing of domicile thus serves the larger constitutional purpose of federal harmony and administrative fairness within the civil service structure of Pakistan,” it said.
The court noted that additional attorney general’s contention that permitting the respondent’s change of domicile would destabilize the civil service structure would have been correct if the respondent remained in the same service structure. However, the “direct recruitment” of in-service candidates involves new pay scales, distinct terms, and a separate seniority list.
