The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it is not bound by judgments of the Supreme Court. According to the court, such decisions carry persuasive weight rather than binding authority in proceedings before the constitutional court.
The ruling came as the FCC dismissed a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company, which had sought restoration of a lease and possession of property. The court also ordered that the security deposit lodged with the petition be forfeited. It said the petitioner had not identified any apparent error on the face of the record, and that the application largely repeated arguments already raised in earlier proceedings.
Scope of Supreme Court rulings and review powers
The court said it may seek guidance from Supreme Court decisions and adopt their legal principles where they agree with the Constitution and applicable laws. Those decisions, however, do not bind the FCC.
The court stressed that its power to review judicial decisions is narrow. It cannot be used to reopen a case or to ask for a fresh hearing on issues already decided. Under the ruling, a review petition can only address errors or omissions that are apparent on the record and that could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Review proceedings, the court added, are not meant to give litigants another chance to argue their case. Instead, the court checks whether a clear and substantial error exists in the original decision. It also urged litigants and lawyers not to file review petitions routinely, and to rely on this remedy only where the grounds are genuine and legally sustainable.
New financial and procedural rules for review petitions
The FCC set out financial and procedural conditions aimed at deterring frivolous and malicious litigation. Applicants must deposit Rs50,000 as security for the hearing of a review petition. That amount may be forfeited if the petition is dismissed or declared frivolous or malicious.
The court said a minimum cost of Rs25,000 may be imposed in cases involving frivolous or malicious petitions. Disciplinary action may also be started against the Advocate-on-Record responsible for filing such applications. In addition, either the Advocate-on-Record or the concerned party must provide a certificate setting out the grounds for seeking a review before the petition is filed.
In appropriate cases, the court noted, review petitions may be decided through circulation without an oral hearing.
The ruling also explained how appeals against High Court decisions under Article 199 of the Constitution work. Referring to Article 175F(1)(c), the FCC stated that leave to appeal must be obtained from the constitutional court before a relevant High Court judgment can be challenged.
Leave to appeal and the test for intervention
The court made clear that leave to appeal is not an automatic right. An application becomes an appeal only once leave has been granted. Refusing leave, the court observed, does not amount to endorsing or confirming the High Court’s judgment.
The FCC said it is not required to give detailed reasons when it rejects a leave application. A brief or non-speaking order, by itself, is also not sufficient ground for seeking a review. At the leave stage, the court examines whether a substantial legal question arises or whether judicial intervention is needed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
The ruling sets out principles on the court’s jurisdiction, the legal standing of Supreme Court judgments and the scope of review proceedings. It also establishes safeguards against the filing of unnecessary and unsubstantiated petitions.
