The debate over FCC powers intensified on Monday when a senior lawyer objected to the court hearing appeals earlier filed under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act. He warned that hearing these cases could make the FCC look like it is reviewing Supreme Court decisions. The bench paused the hearing and allowed the lawyer to file a related application.
The bench took up appeals involving the All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association. However, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that FCC powers did not cover appeals that were first filed under Section 5 of the 2023 Act. He said the case should go back to the Supreme Court, which had earlier issued adverse remarks. Judges reminded him that Article 184(3), once used for such petitions, was removed after the 27th Amendment. They questioned his position and asked him to explain the current constitutional setup.
READ MORE:Pakistan’s new FCC marks historic milestone
The lawyer insisted that the appeal was filed when Article 184(3) still existed. He argued that no petition under Article 175(E) was pending before the Supreme Court. Judges responded that the amendment expanded judicial authority and shifted specific matters to the FCC. The lawyer said lawmakers caused confusion by not addressing this gap clearly. He stressed again that assumptions were creating unnecessary complications.
Another judge suggested filing a fresh petition to settle the jurisdiction issue. The lawyer warned that proceeding with the appeal could signal that the FCC was acting like an appellate body over Supreme Court decisions. He argued that Article 175(F) allows the FCC to hear only appeals from high court judgments under Article 199. He said appeals from the Supreme Court fall outside this limit and exceed FCC powers.
READ MORE:FCC: A landmark reform to strengthen adjudication, expedite justice
During the hearing, judges struggled to access earlier rulings because essential law reports were missing. They relied on books provided by the lawyers and even shared copies. The court noted that clarity on FCC powers is essential to avoid future confusion and ensure smooth handling of constitutional cases.