ISLAMABAD – Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) made it clear about its independent judicial authority, ruling that Supreme Court judgments are not binding on it and can only be considered for legal guidance.
The ruling comes amid dispute involving Balochistan Trading Company, whose attempt to reopen a case over the restoration of a property lease and possession ended in dismissal. The constitutional court also ordered the forfeiture of the company’s Rs50,000 security deposit.
The judgment draws a clear distinction between the judicial authority of the two courts while introducing strict conditions for litigants seeking to challenge decisions through review petitions. FCC said legal precedents established by Supreme Court do not automatically govern proceedings before the constitutional court.
Instead, such judgments carry persuasive weight, meaning the FCC may consider their reasoning without being legally compelled to follow them. However, the court did not rule out relying on Supreme Court precedents altogether. It clarified that earlier judicial interpretations may be adopted when their reasoning is compatible with constitutional provisions and existing laws.
The ruling establishes FCC’s position on legal status of Supreme Court precedents without suggesting that those judgments have become invalid or unenforceable elsewhere. The declaration came as the constitutional court examined a review petition submitted by Balochistan Trading Company, which sought relief in a dispute over its lease and possession of property.
The company had challenged an earlier judicial decision, arguing for reconsideration of the matter. However, the court found no sufficient legal basis to reopen the proceedings. According to judgment, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any obvious legal mistake in the existing record that could justify intervention.
Rather than presenting fresh and legally sustainable ground for review, the application essentially revived arguments already considered during the previous proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and ordered the security amount deposited by the company to be confiscated.
The judgment went beyond company’s individual dispute, delivering broader warning to litigants and legal practitioners against treating review proceedings as another opportunity to contest an unfavourable decision. FCC stressed that review jurisdiction is exceptional and operates within strictly defined boundaries.
The court explained that judicial reconsideration may be justified where an error is clearly identifiable from the case record or where an omission threatens to cause a serious miscarriage of justice. It stressed that review proceedings are not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to repeatedly debate matters that have already been decided.
The constitutional court also outlined financial and procedural safeguards governing review applications. Under requirements discussed in the judgment, a petitioner must deposit Rs50,000 as security for the hearing of a review application.
The amount can be forfeited if the petition is dismissed or found to be frivolous or malicious. The court also warned that unjustified or bad-faith review applications may attract costs of at least Rs25,000.
The judgment said disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against an Advocate-on-Record responsible for pursuing review proceedings without legitimate grounds. The court also indicated that certain review petitions may be disposed of through circulation among judges, without the need for oral arguments.
Federal Constitutional Court referred to Article 175F(1)(c), explaining that a party seeking to challenge a relevant High Court ruling must first obtain leave to appeal from the FCC. This permission is not automatically granted.
Instead, the constitutional court exercises its discretion to determine whether the legal issues raised justify further judicial examination. Only after leave has been granted does the matter proceed as a regular appeal. The court also made an important distinction regarding the rejection of leave applications.
The judgment further addressed questions surrounding judicial orders issued without extensive written explanations. According to the FCC, a refusal to grant leave to appeal does not necessarily require a detailed judgment explaining every aspect of the decision.
At the preliminary stage, the constitutional court primarily examines whether the case raises a legal question requiring its intervention or whether judicial scrutiny is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Constitutional Court seeks Nationwide Case Records after Imran Khan’s Private Hospital Facility
