ICT-PEIRA v. Imtiaz Ali Qureshi and others, and ICT-PEIRA v. Waqas Mahmood and others

Background

Background

In its ICT-PEIRA ruling, the FCC explained the reach of Article 189 and held that two appointments could not survive an expired ordinance.

The education ministry appointed two ICT-PEIRA members under a framework established by temporary ordinances. After the government terminated both in 2021, the Islamabad High Court granted relief. The FCC considered whether the appointments survived the expiry of the last ordinance and the passage of the 2013 Act. The judgment is dated 18 September 2026 and the Court uploaded it on 4 November 2026.

Legal questions

Legal questions

Did two ICT-PEIRA appointments survive the expiry of the ordinance and the 2013 Act, and when do FCC observations on legal questions bind other courts under Article 189?

Court holding

What the Court decided

The appointments could not continue permanently under an expired temporary ordinance where the 2013 Act did not save them. The FCC said that its legal observations bind all other courts, including the Supreme Court, to the extent they meet Article 189(1), including qualifying obiter dicta.

Final outcome

Final outcome

Both petitions converted into appeals and allowed. The Islamabad High Court judgments were set aside and the writ petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

The Islamabad High Court judgments in the two officers’ favour were set aside. The FCC’s discussion of Article 189 directs readers to the legal substance of an observation when assessing its binding force.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• Under Article 189(1), an FCC observation in a judgment or order binds other courts, including the Supreme Court, insofar as it decides a legal question or is based upon or states a legal principle. The FCC held that the test can extend to obiter dicta.
• The FCC adopted the reasoning in Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad, 2018 SCMR 1956, on the limits of ordinances and the role of Parliament.
• Article 264(b) and (c) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve qualifying past acts and accrued rights. They did not confer permanent status on these appointments under a lapsed temporary ordinance.