FCC says it’s not an appellate authority over final SC judgements

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that Article 175E (3) of the Constitution does not grant it any supervisory, review, or appellate authority over final judgments of the Supreme Court that have been decided on appeal and upheld upon review.A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard Syeda Nasreen Zohra’s (deceased) review petition, filed through L.Rs, under Article 188 of the Constitution, read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, for review of the Supreme Court order dated 12.09.2024, passed against the Assistant Registrar (Civil-II) order dated 08.11.2023.The SC Registrar’s office had objected with regard to the maintainability of the petition, filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. A three-member bench of the Supreme Court heard and dismissed Zohra’s appeal vide order dated 12.09.2024. They then filed a review petition under Article 188.Seven-page judgment, authored by Justice Amin, said, “The constitutional scheme does not contemplate a horizontal appeal against a final judgment of the Supreme Court through invocation of its original jurisdiction”.The Federal Court said that the jurisprudence followed, including Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 997) and District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401); consistently reaffirmed that Article 184 (3) is not an appellate or revisional provision.It further said that Article 184 (3) does not constitute an avenue for re-agitating matters already adjudicated upon through the regular judicial hierarchy. Rather, it is a constitutional mechanism designed to intervene in situations where systemic or structural violations of fundamental rights demand immediate constitutional scrutiny.The FCC judgment noted that Article 188 of the Constitution expressly provided for review of judgments of the Supreme Court, subject to law and rules framed by the Court. The presence of the review mechanism indicates that the Constitution recognises only a limited corrective jurisdiction after final adjudication. In Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473), the Supreme Court observed that finality of judgments is indispensable to the administration of justice and that unending re-litigation undermines certainty and institutional authority.Similarly, in Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582), it was held that constitutional interpretation must preserve coherence and cannot permit circumvention of expressly provided remedies.The Federal Court dismissed Zohra’s appeal, saying that the dispute at hand concerns compensation arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The matter has traversed the entire judicial hierarchy, including two rounds of appeals before the Supreme Court and a petition filed under Article 184 (3).The grievance articulated is not one that implicates the enforcement of fundamental rights of the public at large; rather, it is a continuation of a private dispute between legal representatives of a landowner and the Provincial Government. The invocation of a review petition against an order sustaining the office objection while dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which held that the petition filed under 184 (3) was not competent; therefore, appears to be an attempt by the petitioner to reopen a concluded controversy under the guise of constitutional enforcement.The judgment said that if such a course were to be sanctioned, it would render Article 188 redundant and destabilise the doctrine of finality. The Constitution does not envisage perpetual litigation. Judicial discipline demands that there must be a terminus to adjudication. The office objection; therefore, was grounded in constitutional principle and cannot be faulted.Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder