In a Federal Constitutional Court ruling today from Islamabad, the court held that Supreme Court judgments carry persuasive value for it but are not binding. The Federal Constitutional Court said it may still take guidance from those judgments and adopt legal precedents where they remain consistent with the Constitution and the law.
The detailed written judgment also tightened how review petitions and leave-to-appeal applications will be handled, and it applied those principles while dismissing a review filed by Balochistan Trading Company.
What the court said about Supreme Court precedents
The court drew a clear line between guidance and compulsion. Apex court rulings may inform its thinking, it said, but they do not automatically decide constitutional questions before it. That distinction matters as Pakistan's newer federal constitutional forum defines its relationship with the Supreme Court.
In the same Federal Constitutional Court ruling today, the bench stressed that its own review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review is not a fresh hearing. It cannot be used to reopen settled arguments or to reargue a case that has already been decided.
Strict conditions for review petitions
According to the judgment, a review may be entertained only where an error is apparent on the face of the record, or where an omission has caused a miscarriage of justice. Review proceedings are confined to checking for such an apparent error, not to re-trying the dispute.
Litigants and lawyers were told not to treat reviews as a routine step. Before filing, the Advocate-on-Record or the party must submit a certificate setting out the grounds for review. Petitioners must also deposit Rs50,000 as security for the hearing. That sum can be forfeited if the petition is dismissed or found frivolous or malicious.
The court warned that frivolous or mala fide review petitions may attract costs of at least Rs25,000. Disciplinary proceedings may also be started against an Advocate-on-Record involved in such filings. In suitable cases, it added, reviews may be decided through circulation without an oral hearing.
It further held that a non-speaking order—one issued without detailed reasoning—does not by itself supply a valid ground for review.
Leave to appeal from high court judgments
The judgment also set out how challenges to high court decisions under Article 199 of the Constitution will proceed. Under Article 175F(1)(c), permission from the constitutional court is required before an appeal can be filed against such a high court judgment.
Leave to appeal is not available as of right. An application becomes an appeal only after the court grants permission. Refusing leave does not necessarily mean the high court judgment has been endorsed, and the court is not obliged to give detailed reasons when it declines leave. At that stage, the court looks at whether a legal question needs consideration or whether intervention is needed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Applying these standards, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed Balochistan Trading Company's review petition. It found no error apparent on the face of the record, said the company had only repeated earlier arguments, rejected its request for restoration of lease and possession, and ordered forfeiture of the Rs50,000 security.
Aasan alfaaz mein
Federal Constitutional Court ne kaha hai ke Supreme Court ke faisle us par laazmi nahi, sirf mashwara ki tarah dekhay ja sakte hain. Review petition ab aam baat nahi; sirf jab record par saaf ghalti ho. Filing se pehle Rs50,000 jama karna hoga, warna security zabt ho sakti hai. Balochistan Trading Company ki review kharij ho gayi aur us ki security forfeit kar di gayi.
