FCC says Supreme Court rulings are ‘persuasive, not binding’

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it is not bound by judgments of the Supreme Court (SC) and may draw guidance from them only when their legal principles are consistent with the Constitution and the law, setting out its position on judicial precedents in a decision that also establishes stricter requirements for review petitions.

The ruling was issued by Justices Aamer Farooq and Rozi Khan in a case concerning the scope of review and appellate jurisdiction. The court held that SC judgments have ‘persuasive rather than binding’ value for the FCC, and that precedents may be adopted only when they align with constitutional and legal provisions.

The decision comes amid broader debates over Pakistan’s judicial structure, constitutional jurisdiction and the independence of the judiciary.

Under the constitutional framework outlined in the amendment, the FCC’s functions include resolving disputes between the federation and provinces, enforcing fundamental rights and interpreting constitutional provisions. Its establishment transferred original constitutional jurisdiction from the SC to a dedicated constitutional forum, separating these matters from ordinary appellate litigation.

The FCC was established in November 2025 under the Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendment, creating a specialised forum for constitutional disputes and interpretation.

The court formally began its constitutional functions on November 13, 2025. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan was sworn in as its first chief justice the following day at Aiwan-e-Sadr. Six judges were initially appointed, representing all provinces: Justices Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Aamer Farooq, Ali Baqar Najafi, Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Rozi Khan Barrech and Syed Arshad Hussain Shah.

Court defines scope of review petitions

In its latest ruling, the FCC clarified that review proceedings cannot be used to reopen a case for a fresh hearing or provide litigants another opportunity to argue issues that have already been decided.

Instead, an applicant must identify an apparent error in the record or an omission that has affected the administration of justice. The court warned that frivolous and malicious review petitions would be discouraged. Those filing such petitions may face a fine of at least Rs25,000, while the relevant lawyer could also face disciplinary proceedings.

It further ruled that an advocate on record or the concerned party must provide a certificate explaining the grounds for seeking a review before the petition is filed. A security deposit of Rs50,000 will also be required for the hearing of a review petition.

The judgment also addressed the distinction between seeking permission to appeal and exercising an appellate right. The court held that leave to appeal does not itself constitute an appeal; a petition acquires that status only after the court grants permission.

It added that rejection of a leave-to-appeal petition does not necessarily mean the high court’s judgment has been endorsed. Detailed reasons are not mandatory at this stage, and a non-speaking order does not, by itself, provide grounds for review.

The court illustrated its approach by dismissing a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company concerning the restoration of a lease and possession. It ordered the forfeiture of the security deposit, observing that the company had failed to identify an apparent error in the record and had merely repeated arguments raised previously.

Judicial independence and allegations of interference

The FCC’s ruling also comes against the background of concerns raised in 2024 by six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges about alleged interference in judicial affairs by intelligence officials.

On March 25, 2024, Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz wrote to members of the Supreme Judicial Council, detailing seven alleged instances of intimidation and interference. They said such actions were intended to influence the outcomes of cases.

The allegations included claims that intelligence operatives had attempted to pressure judges through their relatives and friends in connection with proceedings concerning the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan.

The judges also described the alleged abduction and torture of a judge’s brother-in-law, who was reportedly forced to record a video containing false allegations against the judge. They said the incident was followed by a complaint against the judge before the Supreme Judicial Council and a media campaign that appeared designed to pressure him to resign.

Other allegations concerned intimidation of district court judges and the discovery of concealed surveillance cameras in an IHC judge’s official residence. According to the letter, private videos of the judge and family members were recovered from the equipment. The judges said responsibility for installing the devices had not been established. The letter further alleged that concerns had been brought to the attention of senior judicial officials, but that interference continued despite assurances that intelligence personnel would not approach IHC judges.

The Islamabad High Court Bar Association subsequently petitioned the SC on April 18, 2024, seeking an investigation and appropriate action against those found responsible. It called for broader safeguards against direct or indirect interference by state institutions, including the executive and intelligence agencies.

Calls for safeguards against interference

The allegations prompted then Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa to convene a full-court meeting. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the chief justice subsequently agreed to establish a commission to investigate the concerns, following cabinet approval. Former chief justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, who was appointed to lead the commission, later recused himself, after which the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the matter.

The six IHC judges also called for a judicial convention to discuss alleged interference by intelligence officials and develop a mechanism for judges facing intimidation.

They argued that the existing judicial code of conduct did not adequately specify how such incidents should be addressed and stressed the need to determine whether the alleged actions reflected a broader policy implemented through intelligence operatives.

The allegations remain distinct from the FCC’s latest ruling on the binding value of judicial precedents and the requirements for review petitions. However, both matters form part of wider discussions about the constitutional framework governing Pakistan’s courts, the limits of judicial authority and the protection of judicial independence.

The FCC’s decision establishes its stated approach to Supreme Court precedents while reinforcing the requirement that review petitions identify a specific legal or factual error rather than simply repeat arguments already considered by a court.