01 / ANALYSIS
Overview of the Case
The Federal Constitutional Court held that Sindh's 2025 age limit for Anti-Terrorism Court presiding officers did not retrospectively terminate the fixed terms of judges appointed under the earlier law.
02 / ANALYSIS
Brief Facts
Muhammad Yameen, a retired district and sessions judge, was appointed to Anti-Terrorism Court IV Karachi on 19 September 2024 for a two-and-a-half-year term ending around March 2027. He was approximately 70 years old when appointed. A Sindh amendment published on 2 September 2025 introduced an upper age limit of 65 for anti-terrorism presiding officers. The provincial government issued a notification on 22 October 2025 directing Yameen and two other presiding officers to cease holding office. The Sindh High Court dismissed a related constitutional petition and Yameen's impleadment application in December 2025. Yameen approached the Federal Constitutional Court.
03 / ANALYSIS
Questions of Law
- Does the 2025 upper age limit apply to presiding officers already appointed for fixed tenure under the earlier law?
- May the provincial cessation notification lawfully terminate the earlier appointment before its fixed term ends?
04 / ANALYSIS
The Court's Answers
Does the 2025 upper age limit apply to presiding officers already appointed for fixed tenure under the earlier law?
Answer. No. In the absence of express retroactivity or necessary implication, the age limit cannot impair existing fixed-tenure appointments made under the former statutory regime.
“the newly prescribed age limit does not apply to existing fixed-tenure appointments so as to curtail their subsisting tenure”
May the provincial cessation notification lawfully terminate the earlier appointment before its fixed term ends?
Answer. No. The Court declared the October 2025 cessation notification without lawful authority in the petitioner's case, converted the leave petition into an appeal and allowed his continuation for the remainder of the stipulated tenure.
“The notification dated 22.10.2025 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect”
05 / ANALYSIS
Practical Relevance
Public authorities and counsel should examine the temporal operation of amendments before terminating existing fixed-tenure appointments. A newly prescribed qualification is not automatically retrospective, especially where it would extinguish a vested term and the statute does not clearly say so.