• Commerce ministry challenges set of LHC instructions regardless of upholding of SROs
• Coverage resolution linked to nation’s nationwide curiosity, Kashmir stance
• Govt official’s counsel phrases excessive courtroom orders ‘judicial overreach’ into govt area, says overseas coverage points historically thought to be ‘non-justiciable’
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Courtroom (FCC) on Wednesday reserved its ruling on the federal authorities’s problem to a set of instructions issued by the Lahore Excessive Courtroom (LHC) in regards to the prohibition on imports from India.
Headed by Justice Aamer Farooq, a three-judge FCC bench, additionally comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, took up an enchantment filed by the commerce ministry towards the Jan 26, 2024 LHC judgment.
The petition was earlier filed earlier than the Supreme Courtroom however after the passage of the twenty seventh Modification, the case was transferred to the FCC for listening to.
Issued by the federal authorities beneath its constitutional and statutory authority, the import ban was imposed by way of statutory regulatory orders (SROs) Nos 927 and 928(I)/2019, reflecting concerns of overseas coverage, nationwide safety and sovereign discretion.
By way of these SROs, imports from and exports to India had been banned for all types of products, together with books and journals.
The controversy arose when the SROs had been challenged earlier than the LHC with the rivalry that these regulatory orders, to the extent of banning the import of books from India, had been extremely vires the Structure.
Validity of SROs upheld
Though the LHC upheld the validity of the SROs by declaring them intra vires the Structure and the related statutory framework, it nonetheless issued sure instructions to the federal authorities.
The LHC directed the federal authorities to nominate an officer to contemplate a assessment or revision of the coverage. It additionally ordered the federal authorities to make sure that it thought-about and determined the officer’s suggestions.
One of many instructions urged that the officer must be appointed inside the subsequent two months by the commerce ministry and that the appointment must be posted on its web site. The petitioners, if that’s the case suggested, had been to file their opinions thereafter.
These instructions, regardless of affirming the legality of the coverage, had been challenged earlier than the FCC as being past the permissible scope of judicial assessment.
In its petition, the federal authorities pleaded earlier than the FCC that it was competent to ban one or all items, or a category of products, from anyone nation or from worldwide sources.
It additionally argued that India was neither an authority in any subject of information nor loved a monopoly over knowledge.
It added that as such, banning imports from India, together with books or journals, didn’t infringe any elementary rights of the respondents.
The petition additionally acknowledged that the suspension of commerce with India was taken within the context of Pakistan’s nationwide curiosity and its longstanding stance on Kashmir.
‘Judicial overreach’
Showing on behalf of the income division secretary, Advocate Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar argued that the Jan 26, 2024 LHC judgment was legally unsustainable to the extent that it issued instructions after upholding the validity of the SROs.
He contended that when the coverage resolution embodied within the SROs had been affirmed, any additional instructions amounted to judicial overreach and encroachment upon the chief area.
The counsel argued that issues regarding commerce restrictions, import prohibitions and regulation of commerce with hostile or adversarial overseas states fell squarely inside the unique area of the chief beneath the constitutional scheme.
He emphasised that points touching upon overseas coverage and exterior relations had been historically thought to be non-justiciable, and that courts had been required to train judicial restraint until a transparent violation of the Structure or elementary rights was established.
The counsel additional contended that constitutional courts had been mandated to adjudicate legality and constitutionality, to not situation instructions requiring the federal authorities to revisit, rethink or reformulate coverage choices.
Such instructions, he argued, violated the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined within the Structure and blurred the constitutionally demarcated boundaries between the judiciary and the chief.
Moreover, Further Lawyer Normal Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, showing on behalf of the federation, submitted that the impugned judgment was not legally sustainable. He acknowledged that the LHC had gone past its jurisdiction by interfering in coverage issues, which courts had been constitutionally barred from doing so.
He added that permitting such instructions would quantity to judicial encroachment into the chief area, rendering the judgment legally unsustainable.
After listening to arguments from either side, the FCC reserved its judgment.
Printed in Daybreak, January twenty second, 2026
