FCC Defines Status of Supreme Court Precedents

The Federal Constitutional Court has clarified that judgements delivered by the Supreme Court do not bind the constitutional court, although their legal reasoning may still carry persuasive value. The ruling further defines the relationship between Pakistan’s two highest courts following changes introduced through the 27th Constitutional Amendment.

The court issued the clarification while dismissing a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company in litigation concerning the restoration of a lease. A three-member bench considered whether its earlier decision contained an error serious enough to justify review but concluded that the petitioner had not established grounds for reopening the matter.

Justice Aamer Farooq authored the judgement, explaining that the Constitution now assigns the Federal Constitutional Court a distinct position in constitutional litigation. Under Article 189, its decisions are binding on other courts, including the Supreme Court, while Supreme Court rulings bind all courts except the Federal Constitutional Court. This distinction does not prevent the constitutional court from relying on well-reasoned Supreme Court precedents where they remain consistent with the Constitution and applicable law.

The judgement also traces the change in appellate jurisdiction. Before the 27th Amendment, applications seeking permission to appeal against High Court decisions under Article 199 were handled by the Supreme Court through Article 185(3). Article 175F(1)(c) now places that responsibility with the Federal Constitutional Court in cases falling within its constitutional jurisdiction.

Permission to appeal is not an automatic entitlement. An applicant must identify a substantial legal question, a constitutional issue requiring determination or a possible miscarriage of justice. The court may refuse leave without issuing an extensive judgement, and such a refusal does not necessarily mean that every observation made by the lower court has been formally endorsed.

The ruling additionally reinforces the narrow limits of review proceedings. A review petition is intended to correct a clear and material error, not to provide an unsuccessful party with another opportunity to repeat arguments or seek a complete rehearing. Disagreement with the outcome, by itself, is therefore insufficient to reopen a concluded case.

For lawyers and litigants, the judgement provides practical guidance on selecting the correct appellate forum and framing future petitions. Supreme Court jurisprudence can continue to inform constitutional adjudication, but advocates appearing before the Federal Constitutional Court must establish their arguments independently under the Constitution rather than treating earlier Supreme Court decisions as automatically controlling.

The decision is likely to influence future constitutional litigation because it addresses both judicial precedent and the transfer of jurisdiction created by the amendment. It also signals that the constitutional court intends to develop its own body of case law while retaining the discretion to draw on established judicial reasoning when it remains relevant and legally sound.