THE Federal Constitutional Court’s recent decision to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in the Monal restaurant case has reopened a question far more important than the ownership of a single building: can Pakistan’s environmental laws survive when they conflict with the financial interests of influential businesses and powerful institutions? The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by a bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, ordered the closure and demolition of Monal and other commercial establishments operating within the Margalla Hills National Park. The Federal Constitutional Court later raised concerns about jurisdiction and procedural fairness, set aside the ruling and directed the trial courts to determine the ownership disputes independently.

The first and most important question is whether the Federal Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. A number of respected jurists have questioned whether it did. If the Constitution did not confer such jurisdiction, accepting its exercise would weaken the rule of law and undermine the provisions that define and limit judicial authority. The Court’s “order”, the quotation marks are intentional, acknowledges that the Supreme Court had already decided the case and dismissed the review petitions. Ordinarily, that should have brought the litigation to an end. By proceeding further, the Court created serious concerns about the limits of its constitutional authority.

Justice Qazi Faez Isa was right to place environmental protection above the financial interests of an individual, business or influential group. The Margalla........

© Pakistan Observer