Chief Justice Amir Farooq has held in a written judgment that Pakistan’s federal constitutional court is not bound by Supreme Court decisions. The Islamabad-based court again made clear that Supreme Court judgments do not apply to it as binding authority, while stating that Supreme Court legal principles can still offer guidance.
What the eight-page ruling says
The finding appears in an eight-page decision dealing with the constitutional court’s powers of review and appeal. Chief Justice Amir Farooq wrote that constitutional courts are not bound by a Supreme Court judgment. He added, however, that such rulings carry guiding legal weight: where principles laid down by the Supreme Court are acceptable, or sit with the law and the Constitution, they may be followed.
The judgment also addressed how lawyers and litigants should treat that guidance. Principles formulated by the Supreme Court for appeals against High Court decisions and orders under Article 199—the constitutional provision for High Court writ jurisdiction—are not mandatory for the constitutional court. The court may still take guidance from Supreme Court legal principles and judicial precedents.
Guidance, not compulsion
In practical terms, the ruling draws a line between being bound and being informed. The constitutional court does not treat Supreme Court outcomes as automatically controlling its own work. At the same time, it does not shut the door on using Supreme Court reasoning when that reasoning fits Pakistan’s statute law and constitutional text.
That framing keeps the two courts’ roles distinct while leaving room for consistency where the law already points the same way. The judgment presents this as a matter of legal status—guidance rather than compulsion—rather than a refusal to consider Supreme Court case law altogether.
Review is not a second full trial
Separately, the court warned against a growing practice among petitioners and counsel. Recent trends, it said, show review jurisdiction being treated as another chance to re-argue a case. During a review hearing, the bench does not re-try the matter. It only checks whether the judicial record shows a clear error or flaw that is apparent on its face.
That reminder is aimed at how review petitions are framed and argued. A review, on this view, is a narrow check for visible mistake, not a fresh debate on the whole dispute.
Aasan alfaaz mein
Federal constitutional court ne kaha hai ke woh Supreme Court ke faislon ki paaband nahi. Agar Supreme Court ke qanooni usool qanoon aur ain se milte hain to unse rehnumai li ja sakti hai. Review petition ka matlab case dobara jhagarna nahi, sirf zahiri ghalti dekhna hai. Adalat jany walon ke liye yeh baat clear hai ke doosri court ka faisla khud-ba-khud yahan laazmi nahi.
