- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Dec 19 (APP):The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has ruled that determining jurisdiction was a fundamental precondition for hearing any case, warning that any order passed without proper constitutional authority has no legal effect.
In a detailed judgment approved for reporting, a two-member bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan Bareech decided Civil Petition No. 2202 of 2025, filed against a May 5, 2025 order of the Sindh High Court.
The case arose after petitioner Khalid Mahmood disclosed ownership of an offshore company, Red Castle, under the 2018 amnesty scheme, but was later issued a notice under Section 109-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. He challenged the notice before the Sindh High Court, which granted interim relief on December 20, 2023, restraining the tax authorities from taking final action.
Following the creation of constitutional benches after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Sindh High Court’s constitutional bench withdrew the interim order on May 5, 2025, prompting the petitioner to approach the Federal Constitutional Court.
The court held that jurisdiction must be conclusively determined before a case is heard, and that even interim orders can only be passed by a bench competent to decide the main matter. Any order issued by a bench lacking jurisdiction, it said, would be without lawful authority.
Clarifying the scope of powers, the court observed that prior to the 27th Constitutional Amendment, constitutional benches under Article 202-A had limited jurisdiction and were not empowered to exercise all writ powers. Upholding the Sindh High Court’s “dominant object” theory, the court said jurisdiction depends on the principal relief sought in a petition.
It noted that matters seeking mandamus or prohibition fall within the jurisdiction of constitutional benches, while petitions for certiorari, habeas corpus or quo warranto are to be heard by regular benches. The court indicated that the issue of jurisdiction in the present case required serious consideration and may warrant remand for fresh hearing.