The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has reiterated that the judgments of the Supreme Court are persuasive, not binding, and may be followed where consistent with the law and the Constitution. A three-member FCC bench, headed by Justice Aamer Farooq and comprising Justice Rozi Khan Barrech and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, announced the judgment in a review petition.
The petitioner Balochistan Trading Company had filed a review petition against the judgment passed by the FCC on May 19, 2026, whereby the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan was put to challenge. The FCC, after hearing the matter at length, dismissed the review petition, holding that no error on the face of the record was pointed out, but rather there was a reiteration of the grounds agitated before it while seeking leave to appeal.
The court, after dismissing the review petition, ordered that the security deposit be forfeited under Rule 6 of the Rules. It is not out of place to mention here that 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, says an eight-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq.
The court ruled that the concept of the jurisdiction which it exercised under Article 175F(1)(c) is that the party has to obtain permission or leave of the court for its appeal to be heard. Prior to the incorporation of Article 175F(1)(c) in the Constitution through the Twenty-Seventh (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2025, this jurisdiction was exercised by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the court noted.
The court, however, further noted that after the above-mentioned constitutional amendment, this Court (FCC) was created and its appellate jurisdiction, inter alia, included hearing petitions for leave to appeal from the decisions/orders of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
The jurisprudence which the Supreme Court of Pakistan evolved in this regard - which is not binding on us, but wisdom can be drawn from it - is that leave can only be allowed if there is any question of law in the matter or indulgence is required to prevent miscarriage of justice, the court held.
The court ruled that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and specific, adding that a review is restricted to an error apparent on the face of the record or an omission resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court further ruled that a review petition is not an opportunity to reopen arguments or re-argue the case, adding that during the course of review proceedings, the court does not rehear the case but examines errors apparent on the face of the record.
The court ruled that a frivolous or malicious review petition may attract costs of at least Rs. 25,000, while disciplinary action may also be taken against the Advocate-on-Record for filing frivolous or malicious review petitions. The court held that before filing a review petition, the Advocate-on-Record or the party concerned must provide a certificate stating the grounds for review, along with a mandatory security deposit of Rs. 50,000.