The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has outlined the legal principles governing its relationship with Supreme Court decisions, explaining that it can refer to previous Supreme Court rulings for legal guidance but is not bound by them.
The clarification came while dismissing a review petition submitted by Balochistan Trading Company in a property dispute involving the restoration of a lease and possession rights. The court also directed that the security amount deposited by the petitioner be forfeited.
In its decision, the FCC found that the applicant had not demonstrated any clear legal or factual mistake in the earlier judgment. It noted that the petition largely repeated arguments that had already been considered during previous proceedings.
The court explained that Supreme Court judgments may serve as useful legal references, provided their principles remain compatible with the Constitution and relevant legislation. However, these decisions do not carry binding force over the Federal Constitutional Court.
FCC Explains Restrictions on Review Petitions
The court also provided guidance on the limited circumstances in which a judicial decision can be reconsidered through review proceedings.
It observed that the review mechanism cannot be treated as a second appeal or used to reopen matters that have already been examined and decided. Its purpose is restricted to correcting clear errors or omissions visible in the existing court record that could lead to an injustice.
According to the ruling, applicants must establish a substantial and identifiable defect in the original decision rather than simply disagreeing with the court’s findings.
The FCC stressed that review proceedings are not designed to give unsuccessful litigants another opportunity to present arguments or obtain a fresh assessment of their cases.
It also cautioned against the unnecessary use of this legal remedy, emphasising that review applications should be filed only when supported by valid legal grounds.
FCC Sets Rs50,000 Security Requirement for Review Cases
The Federal Constitutional Court has also highlighted financial and procedural measures intended to discourage the misuse of review proceedings.
Under the framework explained in the ruling, applicants must submit Rs50,000 as security when filing a review petition. The deposited amount can be confiscated if the application is dismissed or found to be frivolous or malicious.
The court further indicated that additional costs of at least Rs25,000 may be imposed where petitions are considered frivolous or malicious.
It also warned that the Advocate-on-Record involved in submitting such applications could face disciplinary proceedings.
Another requirement is the submission of a certificate by the Advocate-on-Record or the concerned litigant, setting out the justification for requesting a review.
The FCC added that certain review matters may be disposed of through circulation, without requiring the parties to appear for an oral hearing.
FCC Clarifies Appeal Process Under Article 199
The judgment also addressed the constitutional procedure for challenging decisions issued by High Courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 199.
Referring to Article 175F(1)(c), the court explained that permission to appeal must first be secured from the Federal Constitutional Court before an eligible High Court judgment can be challenged through this process.
The court clarified that the right to appeal does not arise automatically. An application seeking permission becomes a formal appeal only after the court grants leave.
It further explained that a refusal to grant leave should not automatically be interpreted as approval of the reasoning or conclusions contained in the High Court’s judgment.
The ruling also noted that the FCC is not necessarily required to provide an extensive explanation when rejecting a leave-to-appeal application.
Similarly, the absence of detailed reasoning in a court order does not independently establish grounds for filing a review petition.
While considering requests for permission to appeal, the court assesses whether the matter raises an important legal issue or requires judicial intervention to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice.
The decision provides further clarification on the FCC’s constitutional powers, its approach towards Supreme Court precedents and the legal conditions governing review and appeal proceedings.
