ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) – The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it can seek guidance from Supreme Court judgments but is not bound by their decisions, clarifying the legal status of judicial precedents and setting out strict conditions for filing review petitions.
In its ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that Supreme Court judgments hold only persuasive value for the FCC. However, the constitutional court may adopt a legal precedent established by the Supreme Court if it is consistent with the law and the Constitution.
The court also clarified that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and applies only to specific circumstances.
According to the ruling, a review petition can only be entertained in cases involving an error apparent on the record or an omission that results in a miscarriage of justice. A review petition cannot be used as an opportunity to reopen arguments or seek a fresh hearing of a case.
The court explained that during review proceedings, it does not rehear the entire case but examines whether an apparent error exists in the original record.
The FCC also discouraged the routine filing of review petitions, directing litigants and lawyers to approach the court for review only when genuine and legally valid grounds exist.
It warned that frivolous or malicious review petitions could attract costs of at least Rs25,000.
The ruling further stated that disciplinary action could also be initiated against an Advocate-on-Record involved in filing frivolous or malicious review petitions.
Before filing a review petition, the Advocate-on-Record or the concerned party will be required to provide a certificate explaining the grounds for seeking a review.
The court also made it mandatory to deposit Rs50,000 as security for the hearing of a review petition.
According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the deposited security may be forfeited if a review petition is dismissed or declared frivolous or malicious.
The ruling further stated that, in appropriate cases, review petitions could be decided through circulation without an oral hearing.
FCC Clarifies Scope of Leave to Appeal
The Federal Constitutional Court also clarified the procedure for appeals against High Court decisions under Article 199 of the Constitution.
It stated that under Article 175F(1)(c), leave from the FCC is required before filing an appeal against a High Court judgment delivered under Article 199.
The court made it clear that leave to appeal is not an appeal as a matter of right. An application acquires the status of an appeal only after leave has been granted by the court.
It further explained that rejection of a leave-to-appeal application does not necessarily mean that the High Court's decision has been endorsed.
The ruling stated that the court is not required to provide detailed reasons when rejecting an application for leave to appeal.
It also clarified that a non-speaking order, or an order without detailed reasoning, does not by itself constitute grounds for filing a review petition.
At the leave-to-appeal stage, the court examines whether a legal question requires consideration or whether intervention is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
FCC Rejects Balochistan Trading Company's Review Petition
Meanwhile, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company and ordered the forfeiture of the security deposited by the company.
According to the court, the company failed to identify any error apparent on the record that could justify a review of the earlier decision.
The court observed that the review petition merely repeated arguments that had already been raised in the proceedings.
Consequently, the company's request concerning the restoration of its lease and possession was rejected.