FCC says Supreme Court judgements are not binding on it

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has stated in a judgement that Supreme Court judgements are not binding on it, but may carry persuasive value, The Express Tribune reported. The 8-page judgement was written by Justice Aamer Farooq.

A three-member bench led by Justice Farooq issued it while hearing a review petition. The judgement said Supreme Court jurisprudence on leave to appeal from high court decisions under Article 199 is also not binding on the FCC. The court said it can draw wisdom from that jurisprudence.

The judgement stated: "The judgments of the Supreme Court are not binding on us, but carry persuasive value and where the jurisprudence laid down by it appeals or seems to be in consonance with the law and the Constitution, may be followed."

On review jurisdiction, the court said its scope is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or mistakes that would result in miscarriage of justice. It said: "Recent trends show that litigants/lawyers treat review jurisdiction as another opportunity to reargue the case; by no means while hearing a review application the bench is rehearing the matter, it is only to see if there is an apparent error/mistake on the face of the record."

The judgement cited the review rules. Under Rule 4 of Order XXVII, the advocate-on-record (AOR) or party must attach a certificate that the application is maintainable and justified, and should take utmost care because a wrong certificate can have grave repercussions. Under Rule 5(a), a frivolous or vexatious application can bring costs of not less than Rs25,000, or disciplinary proceedings against the AOR. A party without a lawyer faces the same minimum costs.

Under Rule 6, a review application is not entertained unless the applicant deposits Rs50,000 as security. Under Rule 6(2), the court can forfeit it if the application is dismissed or found frivolous or vexatious. The court may decide a review application by circulation without an oral hearing in suitable cases. It said the purpose of citing the rules is to sensitise litigants and lawyers to the limited scope of review and the consequences of frivolous applications.

On leave to appeal, the judgement said Article 175F(1)(c), added by the 27th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2025, requires a party to obtain the court's permission for an appeal to be heard. Earlier, the Supreme Court exercised this jurisdiction under Article 185(3).

The court said a petition for leave is not an appeal as of right and that dismissal does not necessarily endorse the order challenged. It said: "Like-wise, while allowing leave to appeal the same can be done without a speaking order."