FCC rules Supreme Court judgments are not binding on it

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that judgments of the Supreme Court have only persuasive value for it and are not binding on it, Daily Times reported. The court may still adopt legal precedents for guidance where they are consistent with the Constitution and the law.

In its detailed written judgment, the FCC held that its review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It cannot be used to reopen a case or to reargue issues that have already been decided. A review may be entertained only for an error or omission apparent on the face of the record, or where a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court set out new conditions for filing reviews. Applicants must submit a reasoned certificate before filing and deposit Rs50,000 as security for the hearing. The security may be forfeited if the petition is dismissed or found frivolous or mala fide. A minimum cost of Rs25,000 may be imposed for frivolous or malafide petitions, and disciplinary action may be taken against the Advocate-on-Record concerned. In appropriate cases, review petitions may be decided by circulation without an oral hearing.

The judgment also addressed leave to appeal. Under Article 175F(1)(c) of the Constitution, leave to appeal against a High Court judgment passed under Article 199 must be obtained from the FCC. Leave is not a matter of right and is subject to the court's discretion. Once granted, the petition becomes a regular appeal.

The court said a refusal of leave does not necessarily mean the High Court judgment has been endorsed. It is not required to give detailed reasons when refusing leave, and a non-speaking order alone cannot be a ground for review. At the leave stage, the court examines whether a legal question arises or whether intervention is needed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

In the case before it, the court dismissed a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company. It found that the company had failed to identify any error apparent on the face of the record and had repeated earlier arguments. The company had sought restoration of its lease and possession of the property. The court also ordered forfeiture of its Rs50,000 security.

Separately, the reports describe a Supreme Court ruling on receivers. It held that appointing a receiver to protect disputed property is a stringent, extraordinary measure that requires proof of imminent risk of loss, damage or unlawful transfer. A receiver cannot be appointed merely at the request of a party. A two-member bench of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan laid down these principles in a case over the dealership and inheritance shares of Kohinoor Petrol Pump in Hyderabad.

In that case, the trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application on May 30, 2025. On August 5, 2025, the appellate court ordered the pump's seal reopened, on condition that the alleged 29.17 per cent share of Mrs Nisa Farhan Memon be deposited with the Nazir. On October 20, 2025, the Sindh High Court set that order aside and appointed the trial court's Nazir as receiver.