Says that determining whether the constitutional challenge is maintainable requires interpretation of the Constitution
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a court registrar has no authority to determine the maintainability of constitutional petitions or appeals, declaring that such questions can only be decided by the court through judicial decision.
In a detailed 16-page order authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, the court partially allowed an appeal filed by Razia Aslam against the Registrar’s decision to return her constitutional petition under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution.
The judgment clarifies the scope of the registrar’s powers and clearly distinguishes between administrative functions and judicial authority. The case arose after the registrar, through an order and return notice dated February 14, 2026, refused to entertain Razia Aslam’s constitutional petition.
The Registrar had raised five objections stating that the petition did not identify any matter of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights, sought the redress of an individual grievance through the Court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, did not satisfy the requirements of Article 175E(3), contained an improperly drafted notice to the respondents without first serving a notice to the respondents.
Justice Rizvi ruled that the registrar exceeded the powers conferred under the Federal Constitutional Court Rules, 2025, by ruling that the petition was not maintainable.
The court noted that the Registrar serves as the executive head of the court’s office and exercises administrative, ministerial and certain procedural powers in connection with the filing and processing of cases. These powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements such as control of form, limitation and other codified deficiencies.
However, the judgment held that deciding whether a constitutional petition is maintainable requires the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the application of judicial discretion, making it a purely judicial function falling solely within the jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Rizvi noted that allowing the Registrar to decide whether it is maintainable would effectively confer judicial powers on an administrative officer, something neither contemplated by the rules nor consistent with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The judgment noted that while the registrar is empowered under the rules to require amendments to pleadings, refuse to receive documents filed in violation of procedural requirements, and dismiss petitions that are not filed in accordance with the rules or contain scandalous material, these powers do not extend to adjudicating substantive legal issues.
The court also clarified the meaning of “scandal” under the rules, holding that the term relates only to errors of form and presentation and cannot be construed to allow the Registrar to dismiss petitions based on their legal merit or alleged frivolity.
Justice Rizvi further observed that frivolous or vexatious petitions can instead be disposed of by the court itself through imposition of costs under the existing rules.
