Federal Constitutional Court Not Bound by Supreme Court Decisions, Setting Major Legal Precedent; Rulings Carry Only Persuasive Value While Frivolous Review Petitions Face Penalties
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court has decided that the rulings of the Supreme Court do not represent binding precedent, a unique ruling that will be referred to as “landmark legal development.In the landmark legal development, the Federal Constitutional Court has made it clear that rulings of the Supreme Court are not binding, but rather persuasive and guidance.
The significant constitutional principles were laid down in a judgment on review petitions authored by a bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Rozi Khan, which dismissed a review application filed by the Balochistan Trading Company with confiscated security deposits for failing to point out apparent errors on record.
The Federal Constitutional Court’s pivotal decision highlighted several significant points:The Federal Constitutional Court’s landmark judgment emphasized a number of key points:
Supreme Court Legal Precedents: Inferred from the court’s ruling, a Supreme Court legal precedent has binding value only when it is strictly in conformity with the constitution and the laws; otherwise, only persuasive value.
The scope of review petitions: The bench held that the aim of a review is not to re-litigate a case or give another chance to argue settled issues, but to correct an error on record or an error of law. Any review petition without any justification or mala fide will be discouraged severely with a minimum penalty of Rs 25,000 and possible disciplinary action of its respecting Advocate.
Leave to Appeal Dynamics: Ruling that the leave to appeal did not automatically mean the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it granting such jurisdiction was separate and distinct. Rejection of leave to appeal does not necessarily mean that the High Court decision was endorsed, and a non-speaking or brief order does not mean that there is a ‘substantial question of law’ or an ‘injustice’ to be addressed, since the leave stage is designed to consider substantial questions of law or the prevention of injustice.