Judicial restraint

Courts, while the ultimate interpreters of legality, must exercise judicial restraint in matters where the law vests policy discretion or administrative choice in an executive or institutional authority

The principle of institutional autonomy thus guards against judicial overreach, ensuring that policy formation remains the prerogative of the executive, and that courts confine themselves to ensuring legality, rationality, and procedural fairness within the limits set by law.

Courts should exercise judicial restraint and refrain from passing adverse orders or taking any actions that could potentially hinder or nullify any government initiative

Such actions can seriously impede the positive initiatives being taken by concerned governmental authorities for the larger interest of the public or the country.

In absence of any glaring illegality/violation of fundamental rights, it was imperative that the Courts should exercise judicial restraint for passing any adverse order, which could potentially hinder/nullify any government initiative, particularly taken for the security enhancement

Judicial restraint would encourage the judges to exercise their powers with restraint/wisdom and to limit the exercise of their own powers to intervene in the matters relating to policy of the Government having financial perspective/outcome/exercise.

Petitioner prayed for an order restraining the respondents (Government Officials) from interfering into petitioner's peaceful possession over the land and from demolishing any constructions raised thereupon under the garb of impugned Notification

Petitioner contended that the notification was issued for a limited period/on temporary basis for a specific purpose to cater for the security threats apprehended during the construction phase of the Airport; that said purpose had been fulfilled and the said Notification was no longer enforceable being lapsed with the afflux of time; that the impugned Notification itself stated that the same would remain in force till the security environment of the area was improved; that the respondents authorities could not interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner over his land under the garb of a lapsed Notification unless a new notification was issued by the competent authority; that impugned Notification had neither been approved by the Federal Cabinet nor published in the official gazette in terms of Art.91 of the Constitution at the relevant time

Impugned Notification was issued by Federal Government to protect the aviation industry in order to curtail the tendency of incidents of aeroplane crashing

Restraining order if issued by High Court could possibly put a complete halt/hiatus to the initiatives taken by the Government for encouraging security plans/activities in country by enhancing security environment through the aviation industry to avoid any incident

Courts should hesitate to strike down laws unless they were obviously unconstitutional

Petitioner failed to point out any unconstitutional act committed by the respondents official

Interference by High Court within the purview of Art.199 of the Constitution would badly hamper the initiatives being taken by respondents authorities for security purposes and would also put an embargo on such like security based activities in future

Petitioner also failed to establish that a prima facie arguable case irreparable loss and balance of inconvenience were in favour of his claim

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Scope, purpose and limit of the judicial restraint asserts and advocates that the judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.

While using powers under Art.199 of the Constitution relating to a policy of the Government with financial layout and implications, the Court exercise the power of judicial review with judicial restraint as a substantive approach to interfere in such matters within the contemplation of judicial review while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed constitutional petition challenging the action of the respondents in taking over the land situated at old Walton Airport (Lahore) owned by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in an illegal manner

Validity

In the absence of any glaring illegality or violation of fundamental rights, it was imperative that the Courts should exercise judicial restraint from passing any adverse order, which could potentially hinder or nullify any government initiative to encourage and promote the investment process because judicial restraint encouraged the judges to exercise their powers with restraint and wisdom and limit the exercise of their own powers while intervening in the matters relating to policy of the government having financial perspective and outcome and exercise

High Court observed that without there being any obvious illegality and deviation from law, any interference by the Court within the purview of Art.199 of the Constitution would badly hamper the initiatives to enhance business activities and would put the whole scheme of actions for promotion of business and trade for the public, a fundamental right provided under Art.18 of the Constitution, to a standstill

Under Art.199 of the Constitution, High Court was though competent to exercise power of judicial review to examine administrative actions from the touchstone of violation of law and breach of Constitution yet the power of judicial review was regulated by the principles of Judicial Restraint

Interim relief, in writ petition, could only be granted as per mandate of Art.199(4) of the Constitution where it was clearly stated that under writ jurisdiction, before making an interim order, the Court had to look into the public interest which should not be harmed/hampered in any manner, therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience was not tilted in favour for grant of interim relief

Application for grant of interim relief was dismissed, in circumstances.

Judicial restraint encourages the judges to exercise their powers with restraint and wisdom and to limit the exercise of their own powers to intervene in the matters relating to policy of the statutory bodies/board having financial perspective and outcome and exercise.

Judicial restraint in its substantial approach urged Judges considering constitutional questions to give deference to the views of the elected branches and invalidate their actions only when constitutional limits had clearly been violated

While the principle, "if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more" well stated the procedural aspect of judicial restraint

Judicial restraint (exercised so as not to intrude in other branches of Government) was essential to the continuance of rule of law, and for the continued public confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary and the voluntary respect for the law as laid down and applied by the Courts.

Exercising judicial restraint in matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and for which the latter is answerable to the people of Pakistan is inherent in the scheme of the Constitution

Judges are not representatives of the people nor accountable for those functions that fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive branch of the State

In such matters intervention is only justified if an aggrieved petitioner can demonstrably show violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights

Interests of the public at large do not prevail over individual rights or interests

Executive is answerable to the people for performance of its duties and functions assigned under the scheme of the Constitution

Executive should be free from unnecessary interference and intrusions warranting exercise of judicial restraint.

Judicial review must remain strictly judicial and in its exercise, Judges must take care not to intrude upon the domain of the other branches (organs) of the State

Courts exercised judicial restraint when a matter related to public policy decision or when the scheme of the Constitution provided for effective forums and accountability mechanism.

Acts committed during the pendency of a matter were the most serious form of contempt because it had a likely effect on one of the most important rights i.e. the right to a fair trial

Power relating to the law of contempt was applied with great reluctance but the only category of contempt which could not be ignored was when the act tended to prejudice the determination of a pending matter because it had the effect of infringing the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process.

Judicial restraint needs to be exercised in questioning wisdom of legislature in enacting a law or an amendment therein subject to caveat that it has been made competently and without in any manner transgressing limitations imposed by Constitution.

Courts in the exercise of their powers of judicial review, ordinarily, did not interfere with public policy decisions and exercised judicial restraint.

Prospectus framed by public educational institution was essentially an administrative policy statement of the respective institution and settled judicial trend was to exercise judicial restraint in interfering with matters dealing with policy decisions of educational institutions

Such general rule of judicial restraint was not absolute and exceptions existed where the impugned action(s) or inaction of the educational institution was ultra vires , mala fide or against fundamental rights of citizens or where the same offended principles of reasonability.

Petitioner was granted provisional admission to respondent University, however the same was rescinded when the petitioner placed on record his date of birth, which per the University prospectus did not entitle him for admission as he was over the age of 25

Contention of petitioner was that restricting admission to candidates under the age of 25 for admission was illegal and unconstitutional

Validity

Article 25A of the Constitution provided right to free and compulsory education of children between ages of 5 to 16 and did not expressly provide for right of a person of advanced age, such as the petitioner and it would not be appropriate to stretch the said fundamental right to the petitioner who was admittedly beyond the age of 16 years and was seeking higher and professional education at a University

Testing the impugned criteria on the threshold of discrimination to citizens beyond the age of 25 years, it was to be noted that the impugned criteria had created a class of applicants within a particular age group who could apply for admission for the bachelors degree at the respondent University and the Court had to see whether such classification qualified the legal test of Constitutionality or otherwise

Impugned criteria not only had an intelligible differentia but also had nexus with advancement of education and encouraged students of a certain age group and thus such "policy decision" of the respondent university passed the "test of classification"

On basis of the principles of "reasonability", the impugned criteria was not unreasonable

Respondent university had only granted provisional admission to the petitioner and directed him to submit correct date of birth and on receiving the same, had passed the impugned decision and by granting such provisional admission; the respondent university had retained authority to recall the same prior to finalization of admission

High Court observed that in line with decisions of the Supreme Court, complete judicial restraint was to be exercised by not granting relief sought by petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court observed that Judicial restraint, magnanimity and good grace should always be demonstrated by a Judge, who was saddled with onerous responsibility to impart justice to all without any fear, favour or ill will.

Court exercised judicial restraint in matters of government policy except where fundamental rights were violated.

Court exercised judicial restraint in matters of government policy except where fundamental rights were violated.

Principle of showing judicial restraint, particularly in the cases relating to the purported scandalization of the judiciary through oral remarks, was a well-recognized principle in judicial history of Pakistan which had been time and again reiterated by the Court

Golden principles of ( ) forgiveness/remission and ( ) pardon, as enshrined in Islam, were one of the hallmarks of the Islamic system of dispensation of justice

Prudent Qazi/Judge entrusted with the onerous task of dispensation of justice was supposed to be more composed and cool minded so as to tactfully deal with such pity notions and remarks, which might have been made in good faith or due to a slip of the tongue

Just and fair remarks, made unconsciously or under the tide of momentary emotions, in somewhat harsh language, were not to be readily taken in the negative sense, but as means for soul-searching and improvement in the system and in such circumstances, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, for shown magnanimity, restraint and grace in his conduct, a Qazi/Judge was not required to wait for an unconditional apology from the person charged with the allegations of using indecent language against him or for scandalizing the judiciary as an institution.