In a significant decision, the FCC also clarified the scope of review petitions and outlined rules aimed at discouraging routine, frivolous and malicious applications.
The court stated that Supreme Court judgments have only persuasive value for the Federal Constitutional Court. The FCC may adopt a legal precedent set by the Supreme Court if it is consistent with the Constitution and applicable law.
The judgment emphasised that the jurisdiction to review a decision is narrow and limited to specific circumstances, such as an error apparent on the record or an omission that could result in a miscarriage of justice. A review petition cannot be used as an opportunity to reopen arguments or seek a fresh hearing of the case.
The court said it examines errors evident from the record rather than rehearing the entire matter. It also discouraged the routine filing of review petitions, urging parties and their lawyers to proceed only when genuine legal grounds exist.
Under the rules outlined in the judgment, frivolous or malicious review petitions may attract costs of at least Rs25,000. Disciplinary action may also be taken against an Advocate-on-Record in such cases.
Before filing a review petition, the Advocate-on-Record or the concerned party must provide a certificate explaining the grounds for seeking a review. Applicants are also required to deposit Rs50,000 as security when filing a review petition.
The court may forfeit the security if the petition is dismissed or found to be frivolous or malicious. It further clarified that, in appropriate cases, review petitions may be decided through circulation without an oral hearing.
Interpreting Article 175F(1)(c), the FCC said permission from the Federal Constitutional Court is required before an appeal can be filed against a High Court judgment issued under Article 199.
The court explained that leave to appeal is not an automatic right. An application becomes an appeal only after the court grants leave.
It also clarified that refusing leave to appeal does not necessarily mean the High Court’s decision has been endorsed. The court is not required to provide detailed reasons when refusing leave, and a brief or non-speaking order does not, by itself, constitute grounds for review.
At the leave-to-appeal stage, the court considers whether a legal question requires examination or whether intervention is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
The FCC issued the ruling while dismissing a review petition filed by Balochistan Trading Company. It said the company had failed to identify any error apparent on the record and had merely repeated arguments raised in its earlier proceedings.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of the security deposited by the company and rejected its request concerning the restoration of a lease and possession of the property.