FCC questions Supreme Court’s Monal Restaurademolition verdict

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday questioned a previous Supreme Court verdict that ordered the closure and demolition of the iconic Monal Restaurant, located in the protected Margalla Hills National Park.

The FCC three-member bench, headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, heared a review petition filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) against the Supreme Court’s ruling.

During the proceedings, the federal government unexpectedly threw its weight behind the civic body, supporting a review of the demolition verdict.

However, the FCC rejected an interim plea by the restaurant management to immediately reopen the eatery, choosing instead to scrutinise the legal foundations of the top court’s original judgment.

During the heated hearing, Justice Rizvi raised critical questions regarding judicial overreach and the denial of due process to the affected commercial entities.

He noted that multiple related cases were already pending in lower courts when the Supreme Court summarily decided the matter.

Justice Rizvi pointed out that a case regarding the renewal of Monal’s lease was pending in a civil court, while intra-court appeals from several other hill-station restaurants were awaiting adjudication in the high court but the Supreme Court issued the verdict.

Monal Restaurant’s counsel, Ahsan Bhoon, argued that the Supreme Court had effectively wrapped up all ongoing litigation across subordinate courts with a single definitive order.

Justice Rizvi questioned why the critical point of giving all affected parties a fair hearing was not aggressively pursued in the apex court.

“Why did all the lawyers become mute spectators in the Supreme Court?” the judge remarked.

Bhoon responded that the legal teams stood respectfully before the apex court just as they were doing now. Justice Rizvi countered sharply, stating: “A lawyer’s job is to raise valid legal points; it is courtiers who stand silently out of sheer deference.”

The bench observed that the review petition filed by the CDA originally failed to highlight solid legal anomalies, prompting the Additional Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the state.

The state’s top law officer informed the court that a new wildlife board law had been enacted in 2024, and confirmed that all stakeholders now agree that the Supreme Court’s demolition order should be set aside, allowing the civil court to decide the dispute on merit.

Justice Rizvi, however, dismissed the idea of deciding constitutional matters based on a mutual understanding among counsels.

Justice Rizvi criticized the tone of the previous ruling, observing sarcastically that “according to the Supreme Court judgment, animals have fundamental rights, but humans apparently do not.”

“Courts do not operate on the mere consensus of lawyers,” Justice Rizvi warned.

“The nature of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court is such that it cannot be undone by simple mutual agreement. To withdraw a judicial order, we must write a comprehensive, detailed verdict.”

The bench emphasised that it would not rush a ruling without full legal scrutiny.

“We do not wish to impose our decisions on anyone without hearing them out, unlike what was done by the Supreme Court,” Justice Rizvi concluded.

The FCC adjourned further hearings in the case until the second week of July, directing all parties to present detailed arguments.