The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has reiterated that its decisions on questions of law are binding on all courts in Pakistan, including the Supreme Court. The observation came in a 24-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi while deciding a petition filed by a female student whose request for an extension to submit her PhD thesis had been rejected by the International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI). The Islamabad High Court (IHC) had also dismissed her petition. A division bench of the FCC led by Justice Rizvi held that Article 189 of the Constitution gives binding effect to the law declared by the court on all other courts, including the Supreme Court, and places a corresponding responsibility on the FCC to maintain consistency and coherence in its own jurisprudence. "A principle of law enunciated by an earlier bench of this Court should, therefore, ordinarily be followed by a subsequent bench of lesser or co-equal strength," the judgment stated. It added that a bench should not depart from, overrule or adopt a view inconsistent with an earlier pronouncement merely because it considers another interpretation preferable. Where a subsequent bench doubts the correctness of an earlier judgment and considers reconsideration necessary, it should record its reasons and request the chief justice to constitute a larger bench for an authoritative determination, the court said. The judgment also clarified the scope of judicial review in matters involving universities, holding that respect for academic autonomy does not place every decision taken by an educational institution beyond constitutional scrutiny. The court observed that constitutional courts ordinarily exercise restraint in matters involving academic judgment. However, the principle applies to the nature of the decision rather than merely to the status of the institution making it. An assessment of a thesis, research work or academic merit, involving specialised expertise, ordinarily warrants judicial deference, the judgment said. Administrative or regulatory decisions, however, stand on a different footing and remain open to judicial review regarding legality, jurisdiction, procedural fairness and compliance with the applicable legal framework. "Academic autonomy and judicial review are, therefore, not mutually exclusive," the court observed, explaining that academic autonomy protects the substantive domain of academic judgment, while judicial review ensures that public power is exercised within the bounds prescribed by law. It added that judicial restraint preserves the legitimate sphere of academic autonomy but does not amount to abandoning the constitutional responsibility to ensure the lawful exercise of power. The FCC also highlighted the constitutional guarantees of equality and the protection of women, observing that circumstances affecting women's educational progression may warrant reasonable accommodation within the applicable legal and policy framework. Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution, the court noted that equality before the law does not invariably require identical treatment. The constitutional provision also permits special measures for the protection of women and children. The judgment observed that women pursuing higher education may have to reconcile their academic progress with marriage, relocation arising from matrimonial obligations, pregnancy, health-related concerns, motherhood and childcare responsibilities. Where such circumstances materially impede the continuity of education, they deserve due consideration within the flexibility available under the governing rules and policies, it said. The court added that reasonable accommodation in such cases does not constitute a departure from equality but may help remove disadvantages that impede women's educational advancement and their effective participation in professional and public life. Such consideration assumes greater significance where the accommodation is permissible under the applicable framework and does not adversely affect an accrued or competing right of a third party, the judgment stated, referring also to Article 34 of the Constitution, which calls for the full participation of women in all spheres of national life. Applying these principles to the petitioner's case, the FCC observed that her request for an extension had not been considered in the manner contemplated by the applicable legal and policy framework, particularly clause 3.12(iv) of the Higher Education Commission's 2023 policy.