ISLAMABAD: A war of powers appears to have erupted between Pakistan’s two apex judicial bodies after the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, issued a strongly worded order rejecting the notion that it is subordinate to the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
ستائیسویں آئینی ترمیم کے بعد سپریم کورٹ اور وفاقی آئینی عدالت کے دائرہ اختیار پر اہم فیصلہ جاری کر دیا،چیف جسٹس جسٹس یحییٰ آفریدی کی سربراہی میں دو رکنی بینچ نے تفصیلی فیصلہ جاری کیا،سپریم کورٹ اور وفاقی آئینی عدالت ایک دوسرے کے ماتحت نہیں ہم پلہ عدالتیں ہیں ، سپریم کورٹ pic.twitter.com/1kVovFUNZi
— Abdul Rauf Bazmi (@RaufBazmi) May 6, 2026
The order comes in response to repeated FCC directives instructing the Supreme Court to abide by its rulings. Chief Justice Afridi clarified that the Supreme Court and the FCC are “coordinate courts” — equal in rank but distinct in jurisdiction — and neither sits in appeal over the other.
The judgment directly addresses tensions created by the 27th Constitutional Amendment, passed in late 2025, which established the FCC as a specialist apex court for constitutional and public law matters. The amendment altered Article 189 of the Constitution, making FCC decisions on questions of law binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court. Supreme Court rulings, however, do not bind the FCC.
This framework led to perceptions — and some FCC orders — that the FCC holds superior authority in constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement pushes back against that view, stressing that while FCC rulings on legal principles must be respected, the Supreme Court retains full jurisdiction in its own domain.
“The two courts are not in an appellate relationship,” the order stated, warning against a “broader construction” of Article 189(1) that would improperly subordinate the Supreme Court.
Legal observers note that the dispute reflects a deeper institutional struggle over constitutional supremacy. The FCC emphasizes its binding authority under the amendment, while the Supreme Court insists on a balanced scheme of dual apex courts with separate lanes of jurisdiction.
The development mirrors arrangements in countries such as Germany and South Africa, where constitutional courts coexist with supreme courts. But in Pakistan’s polarized political climate, the clash has quickly taken on a sharper edge.
Practically, the ruling signals that the Supreme Court will continue to respect FCC pronouncements on pure legal principles but will not cede its independent jurisdiction. Overlapping cases may trigger further friction, deferrals, or calls for clarification through full court meetings or parliamentary debate.
By drawing this constitutional line, the Supreme Court has sought to preserve its institutional stature and prevent the FCC from evolving into a “super-court” above it. Whether this assertion holds or leads to deeper confrontation will depend on upcoming cases and the broader political dynamics surrounding the judiciary.
