- By: Barrister Usman Ali (Ph.D.)
Higher education forms the intellectual foundation of any society that seeks progress, stability, and democratic maturity. Universities are meant to be spaces of learning, research, and critical inquiry, governed by academic merit, institutional autonomy, and the rule of law. They shape informed citizens, produce professional expertise, and generate knowledge essential for national development.
In Pakistan, however, public sector universities have for years struggled to fulfil this mandate. Chronic administrative paralysis, unlawful or politically motivated appointments, and persistent disregard for governing statutes have hollowed out institutional integrity. Instead of functioning as centres of excellence, many universities have become administratively managed entities detached from lawful governance, resulting in declining academic standards and the erosion of public trust.
This systemic decay finally came under sustained judicial scrutiny in 2024, when the Supreme Court of Pakistan took up a constitutional petition filed by the All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association. What followed was not a symbolic exercise, but a sequence of firm judicial orders issued by benches headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. From the outset, the Court made it clear that the matter raised serious constitutional concerns. The Federation, provincial governments, the Higher Education Commission (HEC), and provincial higher education departments were directed to place complete and candid information on record regarding vacancies in statutory posts, prolonged acting charges, and the failure of governing bodies to meet as required by law.
The disclosures that emerged were deeply troubling. Across the country, numerous public universities were operating without regularly appointed vice-chancellors. Key statutory offices, registrars, treasurers, controllers of examinations, deans, and heads of departments, were either vacant or unlawfully occupied through temporary arrangements that had continued for years. Governing bodies such as senates, syndicates, and boards of governors were largely dormant, reducing universities to administratively run institutions rather than bodies governed by statute.
In an important interim order passed in May 2024, the Supreme Court moved beyond fact-finding and issued mandatory directions. Vacant statutory posts were ordered to be filled as soon as practicable, strictly in accordance with applicable laws. The Court categorically rejected the entrenched culture of indefinite acting appointments, warning that temporary arrangements cannot be allowed to substitute lawful governance. This order marked a turning point, converting judicial concern into binding obligation and placing the executive on clear notice.
The Court also examined financial and administrative distortions within public universities. Relying on material placed before it, including reports from the HEC, the Court noted widespread violations of prescribed academic-to-non-academic staff ratios. While academic positions remained vacant, non-academic staff continued to expand unchecked, draining public resources and undermining academic quality. The Court observed that such misallocation of funds was pushing several institutions towards financial unsustainability.
These interim directions were consolidated in the final judgment delivered on 24 October 2024 in Constitution Petition No. 7 of 2024 by a three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan. The judgment framed university misgovernance not as an administrative shortcoming, but as a constitutional failure. Anchored in Articles 4, 9, 25, and 25-A of the Constitution, the Court held that persistent non-compliance with university laws violates fundamental rights. Education, it reaffirmed, is an essential component of the right to life, dignity, and equality before the law.
The judgment was uncompromising in both tone and scope. It held that public sector universities cannot be run at the whim of administrators or reduced to employee-controlled entities devoid of oversight. Governing bodies were directed to meet regularly as mandated by law, and appointments to tenured statutory posts were ordered to be made transparently, on merit, and through public advertisement. Acting charges beyond six months were expressly disapproved. The Court also restrained further non-academic hiring without proper justification and directed strict compliance with HEC-prescribed staff ratios.
A defining feature of the judgment was its insistence on individual accountability. Where illegality was established, appointments were declared void, salaries ordered to be stopped, recoveries contemplated, and senior leadership suspended. The Court’s detailed examination of the International Islamic University Islamabad demonstrated how autonomy, when divorced from accountability, can corrode even historically respected institutions. By ordering audits, suspensions, and lawful interim arrangements, the Court underscored that constitutional compliance is not optional.
The judgment also reaffirmed the democratic character of universities by endorsing the revival of student unions in a regulated and inclusive manner. It recognized that student representation is not a threat to discipline, but a vital component of academic culture and institutional stability.
This decision stands among the most consequential judgments of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa for higher education institutions and students across Pakistan. It articulated a constitutional vision of universities governed by law, transparency, merit, and participatory governance. Yet, as has too often been the case, obstacles soon emerged in its implementation. Bureaucratic resistance, delayed notifications, selective compliance, and political reluctance have blunted the transformative force of a judgment intended to correct decades of neglect.
It must therefore be emphasized that the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered in October 2024 remains fully valid, operative, and binding. The passage of time has not diminished its authority or relevance; indeed, its continuing importance is underscored by the fact that the underlying conditions remain largely unresolved. Genuine reform now requires sustained executive commitment rather than episodic compliance triggered by litigation. Federal and provincial governments must institutionalize monitoring mechanisms, the HEC should regularly publish compliance reports, appointment processes must be time-bound and insulated from political influence, and governing bodies must function as real decision-making forums.
If implemented in its true letter and spirit, this judgment has the potential to recalibrate Pakistan’s higher education system on firm constitutional foundations. Whether that promise is realized or once again frustrated will determine not only the future of public universities, but the intellectual and democratic future of the nation.