A new law in the Sindh Assembly aims to abolish the original civil jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court (SHC). What exactly is original civil jurisdiction, and what are the advantages or disadvantages of abolishing it?
To begin with, I am strongly opposed to abolishing the original civil jurisdiction of the SHC.
The original civil jurisdiction of the SHC means that civil suits above a notified value can be directly filed in the high court instead of district courts. Currently, this threshold is six and a half crore rupees, and this jurisdiction exists only in the Islamabad High Court and in Karachi. No other high courts in Pakistan, nor any SHC bench outside Karachi in Sindh, have this jurisdiction. The original civil jurisdiction handles private disputes between parties that involve factual matters, requiring extensive witness examination before a verdict is reached. Now, the government has decided to abolish this jurisdiction.
The justification given is that, since other provinces and even other districts of Sindh do not have original civil jurisdiction, there is no reason for Karachi to have it. It is also argued that high courts should not directly hear civil suits, which should instead start in district courts and make their way up through appeals. Some even claim that shifting these cases to district courts will reduce the burden on the high court and provide learning opportunities for young lawyers. However, these arguments are flawed.
First, Karachi's exception is rooted in history. The SHC has exercised this jurisdiction for decades, even before Partition. In pre-Partition India, port cities such as Bombay, Madras and Calcutta had similar original civil jurisdiction, and they continue to retain it even today. This feature sets these high courts apart, and since I belong to Sindh, I want my high court to retain this historic jurisdiction just as other major cities have maintained theirs.
Many port cities worldwide have original jurisdiction because they are commercial hubs with high-value business disputes. For example, the London High Court also has original civil jurisdiction, allowing direct filing of commercial cases. I recently served as a legal expert in a Pakistani civil suit in London and have seen firsthand how such jurisdictions function. Historically, original civil jurisdiction is reserved for commercial centres where high-value disputes require resolution by experienced senior judges rather than district courts. Is there any doubt that Karachi is, for all purposes, Pakistan’s commercial hub?
As for the claim that removing this jurisdiction will reduce case pendency, that argument does not hold up. If shifting cases to district courts were a solution to backlog issues, then Punjab, which has no original civil jurisdiction, would have fewer pending cases. But the reality is that Punjab’s district courts have an even greater backlog. Additionally, cases will still be filed in district courts first and eventually reach the high court through appeals, so abolishing original jurisdiction will not eliminate the high court’s caseload – it will merely delay resolution.
Another argument used to justify this change is that young lawyers will have better learning opportunities if civil suits start in district courts. But district courts already handle countless civil cases. If young lawyers believe that practising in the high court is too challenging, then they will never develop the discipline required to be strong advocates. High court practice requires punctuality, preparation, and rigour, and young lawyers should aspire to this level rather than seek easier environments. Yes, practising in the high court is difficult compared to lower courts, but that is precisely why lawyers should want to learn there. A well-functioning judicial system should not be dismantled simply to make things easier for some lawyers.
Another problem with this bill is that it proposes transferring all existing cases under original jurisdiction to lower courts. This would create immense confusion, causing unnecessary delays and harming litigants who have already spent years in legal battles. It would be a catastrophic blunder, similar to the demonetisation policy in India under Modi, which created chaos and long-term problems. The timing of this move is also concerning, as superior courts in Pakistan are already under pressure due to the 26th Amendment.
The government can very easily pick choices for constitutional benches which hear constitutional petitions, but the 26th Amendment does not go so far as to interfere with the high court’s original jurisdiction. This appears to be yet another attempt to weaken the high court’s role. The original civil jurisdiction of the SHC does not just handle private disputes; it also ensures that fundamental rights are protected, and illegal government actions are set aside. Removing this jurisdiction will limit the court’s ability to oversee public officials and legal matters of wider importance, and the matter would for any purpose end up before the constitutional benches.
Anyone who practises law in Sindh knows that there is an informal network known as ‘the system’ which heavily influences land disputes. This system is so powerful that it often manipulates legal proceedings in lower courts. If original civil jurisdiction is abolished, these land disputes will shift to lower courts, where it will be easier for corrupt elements to interfere. Keeping the original jurisdiction in the high court ensures that at least some level of independent judicial oversight remains intact.
Even the Supreme Court of Pakistan has acknowledged that original civil jurisdiction is a valid and necessary exercise of constitutional judicial power. This bill should not have become law. The Sindh government should focus on strengthening the judicial system rather than dismantling it.
The writer is a barrister.