The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan has ruled that no parallel appeal can be filed before it against a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
According to the written detailed judgment approved for reporting, a two-member bench comprising Chief Justice, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi dismissed a review petition filed against the Supreme Court’s order dated September 12, 2024.
In its written decision, the court observed that even after the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the Federal Constitutional Court has not been granted the authority to supervise or hear appeals against judgments of the Supreme Court. The court held that the constitutional framework does not permit the final decisions of the Supreme Court to be challenged again through any parallel constitutional proceedings.
The judgment stated that the Constitution does not allow endless litigation and that legal disputes must reach a point of finality. Otherwise, the principle of finality of judicial decisions would be undermined.
The court further held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under former Article 184(3) of the Constitution and subsequently inserted Article 175E(3) can only be exercised in matters of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights, and cannot be invoked for an individual grievance or a private dispute.
According to the written verdict, the case in question related to compensation for land and was a private dispute between the petitioner and the Multan Development Authority. Therefore, it could not be considered a matter of public importance.
The court also observed that the scope of review under Article 188 of the Constitution is limited, and once a review petition is dismissed by the Supreme Court, the matter reaches its conclusion. A final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be reopened under the guise of a curative review or any other legal title.
The petitioner had argued that a three-member bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in his favour in 2015, which was later affected by a decision of a two-member bench in 2022. However, the court held that this ground does not justify reopening the case through a constitutional petition.