In Pakistan’s legal landscape, the issue of whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters that could potentially be resolved through statutory remedies has garnered considerable attention. This article explores this delicate balance, drawing insights from both legal precedents and the provisions of the law.The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan confers extraordinary powers upon the High Court to adjudicate matters falling under its constitutional jurisdiction. However, a pressing question arises: Is it prudent for the High Court to entertain cases that might be addressed through established appellate, revisional, or reference procedures stipulated in various statutes?
Statutory Remedies and Legislative Intent
It is imperative to acknowledge that the legislature, in its wisdom, has meticulously laid out specific statutory remedies for aggrieved parties. These remedies typically take the form of appeals, revisions, or references, and they serve as a clear manifestation of legislative intent. They also align with the fundamental principles of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The primary function of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws enacted by the legislature.
The Peril of Bypassing Statutory Remedies
When the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, it runs the risk of making the statutory remedies redundant. To illustrate, Pakistan’s tax statutes grant the right to file a reference before the High Court to address questions of law stemming from decisions of the Tax Tribunal. Significantly, references are heard by a division bench of the High Court, whereas writ petitions are typically heard by a single bench.
A key guiding principle for the judiciary, in its exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, should be to avoid superseding the statutory jurisdiction vested by the legislature. The reference process provides a distinct advantage by allowing the High Court to draw from the rationale of adjudicatory forums established by the statute that have already examined the issues at hand.
The Role of Legal Precedents
The legal landscape is profoundly influenced by judicial precedents. Superior courts in Pakistan have consistently discouraged the practice of sidestepping statutory remedies in favor of invoking constitutional jurisdiction. They have upheld the view that constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases where an order or action is palpably without jurisdiction or tainted by mala fide intent.
Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1993 SCMR 29)
In the case of Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1993 SCMR 29), the Supreme Court explicitly highlighted the need to discourage bypassing statutory remedies. It underscored that constitutional jurisdiction may be warranted when an impugned order or action is patently without jurisdiction or tainted by mala fide intent.
H.M Abdullah v. The Income Tax Officer (1993 SCMR 1195)
H.M Abdullah v. The Income Tax Officer (1993 SCMR 1195) emphasised that the Income Tax Ordinance represents a comprehensive legal framework that furnishes remedies for addressing grievances, both for taxpayers and the Revenue. It made it clear that parties should not be permitted to evade these statutory remedies.
The Relevance of Statutory Remedies
No other adequate remedy is available:- Under the Constitution, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 only when no other adequate remedy is available. For example, the Income Tax Ordinance provides a sequence of remedies, including appeals, references, and applications for opinions from the High Court. The presence of these remedies reinforces the principle that parties should not be allowed to circumvent the ordinary remedies prescribed by the statute.
The exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court must be guided by principles that respect the legislative framework and the separation of powers. The Constitution entrusts the judiciary with the duty to apply and enforce the laws as enacted by the legislature. It is paramount for litigants to exhaust statutory remedies to ensure a comprehensive, reasoned, and lawful adjudication of their cases. By upholding these principles, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding the integrity of the legal system in Pakistan.
In short, the interplay between constitutional and statutory remedies in Pakistan requires the High Court to navigate its jurisdiction judiciously. While Article 199 of the Constitution empowers the judiciary with extraordinary authority, the existence of meticulously outlined statutory remedies underscores the legislature’s intent and the separation of powers. Legal precedents caution against bypassing established statutory avenues, emphasizing the sparing use of constitutional jurisdiction in cases of clear jurisdictional errors or mala fide intent. The relevance of statutory remedies cannot be overstated, offering a structured framework for addressing grievances and upholding the rule of law. The judiciary’s adherence to principles that respect legislative frameworks ensures a comprehensive and lawful adjudication of cases, reinforcing its pivotal role in maintaining the delicate balance between constitutional and statutory remedies in Pakistan’s legal landscape.
ZAHWAR LAW ASSOCIATES 