The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) rejects a request for review of the registrar’s office’s objections, ruling that the constitution does not provide for perpetual litigation, as judicial discipline requires that there be an end to the sentence. A division of the FCC issued the seven-page judgment, authored by FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, on a petition for review of a Supreme Court order that had upheld the Justice Office’s objections to a plea filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The court found that the petition appears to be an attempt to "reopen a closed dispute under the guise of constitutional enforcement". It said that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has consistently confirmed that Article 184(1). 3, is not an appeal or review provision. Prior to the 27th amendment, it is stated in the executive order, Article 184, par. 3, the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in matters of public importance in connection with the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution.
"The scope and reach of this provision was authoritatively delineated in the Benazir Bhutto case in 1988, where it was held that the jurisdiction is of an extraordinary nature and is intended to deal with matters affecting the public at large, rather than to serve as a forum for the redressal of individual grievances arising out of concluded legal proceedings," said the judge.
"The court emphasized that public importance and the enforcement of fundamental rights are jurisdictional prerequisites and not mere formalities," it continued. "It does not constitute an opportunity to react to cases that have already been decided through regular legal hierarchy," added it. Instead, the judgment held that it is a constitutional mechanism designed to intervene in situations where systemic or structural violations of fundamental rights require immediate constitutional review."
In the present case, it was stated in the court order that the petitioner, after availing himself of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court and then the constitutional remedy under Article 188, which was rejected, relied on Article 184, para.
"The attempt is essentially to challenge a final judgment passed by the apex court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. However, the constitutional scheme does not contemplate a horizontal appeal from a final judgment … through invocation of its original jurisdiction," added it.
"Equally significant is that the present dispute concerns compensation arising from land acquisition cases," said the court, adding that the case has traversed the entire judicial hierarchy, including two rounds of appeals before the Supreme Court and a petition filed under Article 184(1).
"The grievance being formulated is not one that implicates the enforcement of fundamental rights of the public at large; rather, it is a continuation of a private dispute between legal representatives of a landowner and the provincial government," judgment noted. The order held that the invocation of a petition for revision against an order sustaining the objection of the office, while the CM Appeal, which held that the petition filed under Article 184, para. 3, was not competent, therefore appears to be an attempt by the petitioner to reopen a closed dispute.
