The Federal Constitutional Court (FCCP) has ruled that judgments issued by the Supreme Court possess only persuasive value and are not binding on the court.
The FCCP may adopt legal precedents for guidance provided they remain consistent with the law and the Constitution. The court held that its review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used to reargue issues already decided or to reopen a case.
A review can only be entertained if a miscarriage of justice occurred or if an omission or error is apparent on the face of the record. The FCCP stated that lawyers and litigants should only invoke this jurisdiction when genuine legal grounds exist rather than filing review petitions as a routine matter.
Disciplinary action may be taken against the Advocate-on-Record involved in such frivolous or malafide filings. Applicants are now required to submit a reasoned certificate before they can file a review petition. The court also mandated that applicants deposit Rs 50,000 as security for a review petition hearing.
This security may be forfeited if the court finds the petition to be malafide, frivolous, or dismisses it. In appropriate cases, the FCCP may decide review petitions through circulation without holding an oral hearing. The court noted that leave to appeal is subject to its discretion and is not available as a matter of right.
A petition only acquires the status of a regular appeal once leave is granted. The FCCP stated that a refusal to grant leave to appeal does not necessarily mean the High Court judgment has been endorsed. The court is not required to provide detailed reasons when it refuses leave.
A non-speaking order by itself cannot be used as a ground for review. The FCCP dismissed a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company seeking to restore its lease and possession of the property. The FCCP ordered the forfeiture of the Rs 50,000 security deposited by Balochistan Trading Company.
