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 Hills National Park is not ordinary government property that may be opened to commercial development whenever an authority considers it convenient or profitable. It is a protected ecological area whose forests, wildlife, water systems and biodiversity contribute directly to the environmental health of Islamabad. In a broader constitutional sense, it belongs not only to the present population but also to future generations. The fundamental question was therefore not merely who owned the restaurant building or which authority had granted a lease. It was whether a large commercial enterprise should ever have been permitted to operate within a legally protected national park. The Supreme Court correctly recognized that environmental protection is inseparable from the constitutional rights to life and dignity. The right to life means more than physical survival. It includes clean air, safe water and an environment capable of sustaining human health. Environmental damage is rarely confined to the land on which it occurs. The destruction of forests and natural habitats affects air quality, water retention, wildlife, temperature and the wider ecological balance. The public bears these losses, while the financial benefits of commercial development are usually enjoyed by a much smaller group. This is why environmental protection must prevail over private profit.
Monal was popular, commercially successful, associated with Islamabad’s tourism and social life and a source of employment. However, these factors could not create a permanent entitlement to occupy protected land for commercial purposes. Popularity does not legalize an environmentally incompatible activity and financial success cannot override the statutory purpose of a national park. The case also exposes an uncomfortable reality: the more profitable and influential an enterprise becomes, the more difficult it may be for the state to enforce the law against it. A small, unknown business operating unlawfully on public land would be unlikely to receive years of institutional accommodation and repeated litigation. A financially powerful enterprise, by contrast, can retain leading lawyers, challenge procedural defects and pursue its case through successive forums.
Influence does not always take the form of direct interference. It may operate through access, resources, administrative relationships and the ability to continue litigating until an unfavourable decision is reconsidered. Even apart from the jurisdictional question, the outcome creates a troubling public perception that influential financial interests received greater protection than the environment. That perception is reinforced by the role of the Capital Development Authority and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad. The public is entitled to ask why government institutions appeared more determined to overturn the demolition order than to defend the ecological integrity of the Margalla Hills. The case was diverted from an important environmental issue into disputes over ownership, leases, jurisdiction and procedure. Those questions should not have displaced the broader constitutional issue. Ownership and environmental legality are separate matters.
A person may establish ownership of a structure without acquiring the right to operate a restaurant within a protected national park. Property rights remain subject to environmental, zoning and wildlife laws. Even if one assumes that the Federal Constitutional Court had jurisdiction, it should not have sacrificed the environmental protections secured by the earlier judgment. The Court could have returned genuine ownership disputes to the trial courts while preserving the prohibition against commercial activity within the national park. It could also have required an independent environmental assessment before any decision about the future use of the site.
Instead, by setting aside the earlier ruling without clearly preserving its environmental protections, the Court risks reducing a matter of ecological survival to an ordinary property dispute. Environmental protection is not an emotional concern but a constitutional and legal obligation. While procedural fairness is essential, it must not become a shield for financial privilege, nor should any court conduct itself as though it stands above the Constitution. The Federal Constitutional Court must therefore guard against becoming or appearing to become, an instrument through which influential interests secure exceptional treatment. Courts derive their legitimacy from the Constitution, not institutional power alone. The ultimate issue in the Monal case is not the fate of one restaurant but whether constitutional authority, environmental protection and the public interest can withstand the pressure of wealth, influence and institutional power.
—The writer is Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Usman Law Professional Corporation, based in Canada.
