ISLAMABAD, Nov 02 (APP):The Federal Constitutional Court (FCCP) has ruled that judgments of the Supreme Court have only persuasive value for the Federal Constitutional Court and are not binding on it, although it may adopt legal precedents for guidance where they are consistent with the Constitution and the law. In its detailed written judgment, the FCCP held that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used …
FCCP not bound by Supreme Court judgments, may rely on precedents consistent with Constitution and law
ISLAMABAD, Nov 02 (APP):The Federal Constitutional Court (FCCP) has ruled that judgments of the Supreme Court have only persuasive value for the Federal Constitutional Court and are not binding on it, although it may adopt legal precedents for guidance where they are consistent with the Constitution and the law.
In its detailed written judgment, the FCCP held that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used as a means to reopen a case or reargue issues already decided.
The court observed that a review could only be entertained on the basis of an error or omission apparent on the face of the record or where a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Litigants and lawyers should avoid filing review petitions as a matter of routine and invoke this jurisdiction only where genuine legal grounds exist.
The court further ruled that a minimum cost of Rs 25,000 could be imposed for filing frivolous or malafide review petitions, while disciplinary action could also be taken against the Advocate-on-Record concerned.
It made it mandatory for applicants to submit a reasoned certificate before filing a review petition and deposit Rs50,000 as security for its hearing. The security may be forfeited if the petition is dismissed or found to be frivolous or mala fide.
The judgment also stated that, in appropriate cases, review petitions could be decided through circulation without an oral hearing.
The FCCP further held that under Article 175F(1)(c) of the Constitution, leave to appeal from a High Court judgment passed under Article 199 must be obtained from the Federal Constitutional Court. Such leave is not available as a matter of right but is subject to the court’s discretion. Only after leave is granted does the petition acquire the status of a regular appeal.
According to the court, refusal of leave to appeal does not necessarily mean that the High Court judgment has been endorsed. It is also not mandatory for the court to provide detailed reasons while refusing leave, and a non-speaking order, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for review. At the leave-to-appeal stage, the court examines whether a legal question arises or intervention is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
These legal principles were laid down by the FCCP while dismissing a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company.
The court observed that the company had failed to identify any error apparent on the face of the record that could justify a review of the judgment and had merely repeated arguments raised earlier.
The FCCP dismissed the company’s petition seeking restoration of its lease and possession of the property and ordered forfeiture of the Rs 50,000 security deposited by it.
