FCC Apex Court Judgement on Review Petitions

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has again asserted its position as the apex court, ruling that judgements of the Supreme Court are not binding on it. The court said Supreme Court jurisprudence can carry persuasive value, and wisdom can be drawn from it, but it does not bind the FCC.

The ruling came in an eight-page judgement authored by Justice Aamer Farooq. A three-member bench led by Justice Farooq heard a review petition and set out the scope of the court’s review and appellate jurisdiction.

Supreme Court judgements carry persuasive value only

“The judgments of the Supreme Court are not binding on us, but carry persuasive value and where the jurisprudence laid down by it appeals or seems to be in consonance with the law and the Constitution, may be followed,” the judgement said.

The bench also held that Supreme Court jurisprudence evolved for leave to appeal from decisions or orders of a high court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not binding on the FCC either. At the same time, the court said it can draw wisdom from that jurisprudence.

Review jurisdiction is narrow, the court says

The judgement stressed that the court’s review jurisdiction is quite limited and circumscribed. It is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, or mistakes and shortcomings that would result in a miscarriage of justice.

“Recent trends show that litigants/lawyers treat review jurisdiction as another opportunity to reargue the case; by no means while hearing a review application the bench is rehearing the matter, it is only to see if there is an apparent error/mistake on the face of the record,” the judgement said.

The court said the practice of filing a review application as a matter of course, where the grounds for review are not attracted, does not find favour with it. It added that most such applications are nothing but a rehearing of the matter.

Costs and security for frivolous review pleas

The judgement set out the consequences for frivolous or vexatious review applications. Where the court concludes that an application is frivolous or vexatious, it can impose costs of not less than Rs25,000. An Advocate-on-Record can also face disciplinary proceedings under Rule 5(a) of the Rules. Where there is no legal representation, the party itself will be liable to costs of not less than Rs25,000.

No review application is to be entertained unless the applicant deposits Rs50,000 as security in the designated account, as required by Rule 6 of the Rules. Rule 6(2) empowers the court to forfeit that security if the application is dismissed or found to be frivolous or vexatious.

Rule 4 of Order XXVII of the Rules also requires a certificate, in the form of a reasoned opinion, stating that the application is maintainable and that a review is justified. The order said utmost care should be exercised with that certificate, since a wrong certificate can have grave repercussions.

Leave to appeal under Article 175F(1)(c)

The judgement also explained the court’s appellate jurisdiction under Article 175F(1)(c) of the Constitution. Under that provision, a party has to obtain permission, or leave, of the court for its appeal to be heard.

Before Article 175F(1)(c) was incorporated into the Constitution through the 27th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2025, this jurisdiction was exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 185(3). After the amendment, the FCC was created, and its appellate jurisdiction included hearing petitions for leave to appeal from decisions or orders of a high court under Article 199.

Why this judgement matters

Frequently asked questions

What did the FCC decide about Supreme Court judgements?

The FCC said Supreme Court judgements are not binding on it. They carry persuasive value, and the court may follow them where the reasoning appeals to it or fits the law and the Constitution.

Who authored the judgement?

Justice Aamer Farooq authored the eight-page judgement. A three-member bench led by him heard the review petition.

How narrow is the FCC’s review jurisdiction?

Review is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, or mistakes that would result in a miscarriage of justice. It is not an opportunity to reargue a case.

What does a frivolous review application cost?

The court can impose costs of not less than Rs25,000. No review application is entertained unless the applicant deposits Rs50,000 as security, which can be forfeited if the application is dismissed or found frivolous or vexatious.

What is leave to appeal under Article 175F(1)(c)?

A party must obtain the court’s permission, or leave, before its appeal is heard. Leave is allowed only if there is a question of law, or indulgence is required to prevent a miscarriage of justice.