The Binding Force of Precedent Under Articles 189 and 201
Precedent in Pakistan is constitutional rather than customary. Two Articles say who is bound by what, they are short, and their wording repays reading in full, because a great deal of what advocates believe about binding authority is a rough approximation of what they actually provide.
Article 189
As it now stands, following the substitution made by the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act 2025, Article 189 has two clauses:
(1) Any decision of the Federal Constitutional Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan including the Supreme Court.
(2) Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan except the Federal Constitutional Court.
The change to note is the second half of each clause. A decision of the Federal Constitutional Court binds the Supreme Court, and a decision of the Supreme Court does not bind the Federal Constitutional Court. Before the amendment there was one apex court for this purpose and now there are two, ordered in that direction on questions of law.
Article 201
Subject to Article 189, any decision of a High Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all courts subordinate to it.
Two limits are built into the sentence and both are consequential.
The first is territorial and lives in the words "subordinate to it". A High Court binds the courts beneath it, and no others. A judgment of the Lahore High Court does not bind a court in Sindh, and a judgment of one High Court does not bind another High Court. It is persuasive, sometimes highly so, and it is not authority the court is obliged to follow. Citing it as though it were is a small error that a bench will notice.
The second is the opening words. Article 201 is subject to Article 189, so where a High Court decision and a decision of the Supreme Court or the Federal Constitutional Court cover the same question of law, the High Court decision yields.
The limiting phrase both Articles share
Neither Article makes a whole judgment binding. Each binds a decision "to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law".
That phrase is the constitutional statement of the distinction between the ratio of a case and everything else in it. Findings of fact bind nobody. Observations not necessary to the decision are not covered by the language. What binds is the proposition of law the case turned on, and identifying that proposition is the actual work of using an authority properly.
It also explains why a citation is weaker than it looks when it consists of a paragraph number and nothing else. The question a court will ask is what question of law the cited case decided, and whether it is the question now before it.
The Federal Shariat Court
Article 203GG is separate and frequently forgotten:
Subject to Articles 203D and 203F, any decision of the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Chapter shall be binding on a High Court and on all courts subordinate to a High Court.
Within the Chapter's own jurisdiction, and subject to those two Articles, a decision of the Federal Shariat Court binds a High Court. This is a different route to binding force from Articles 189 and 201, and it operates over a defined subject matter rather than at large.
What follows in practice
A few working rules fall out of the text.
Cite the ratio, not the passage. Because the binding element is the principle of law the case decided, an authority is strongest when the proposition is stated and the passage supports it, and weakest when the passage is quoted and the proposition is left for the court to infer.
Name the court and check it binds. Before a High Court judgment goes into a list of authorities, ask whether it is from the High Court the matter is in. If it is not, present it as persuasive and say why it should be followed. That is a stronger position than being corrected.
Look for the higher answer first. Where the Supreme Court or the Federal Constitutional Court has decided the point, the High Court authority is a supplement rather than the foundation, and the order of a list of authorities should reflect that.
And a judgment cited for a question of fact is cited for nothing. Neither Article makes a factual finding binding on anyone, however closely the facts resemble your own.
Where to look it up
None of this is difficult to apply once the hierarchy is clear; the difficulty is finding the authority in the first place, particularly for a provision that has attracted attention in one High Court and not another. Searching by the section or article a judgment engaged with, rather than by a phrase you hope it contains, tends to find the anchor cases faster, and it is one of the reasons a case law collection is worth searching from the statute end as well as the keyword end.