ISLAMABAD:
Rejecting a review petition against the Registrar Office’s objections, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that the Constitution does not envisage perpetual litigation, as judicial discipline demands that there must be a terminus to adjudication.
A division bench of the FCC issued the seven-page judgment, authored by FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, on a review petition against a Supreme Court order that had upheld the Registrar Office’s objections to a plea filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
The court held that the petition appears to be an attempt to “reopen a concluded controversy under the guise of constitutional enforcement”. It said that Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently reaffirmed that Article 184(3) is not an appellate or revisional provision.
Prior to the 27th Amendment, the order states, Article 184(3) conferred original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court in matters of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution.
“The scope and ambit of this provision were authoritatively delineated in Benazir Bhutto case in 1988, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction is extraordinary in character and is intended to address issues affecting the public at large rather than to serve as a forum for the redress of individual grievances arising out of concluded litigation,” the judgment said.
“The court emphasised that public importance and enforcement of fundamental rights are jurisdictional preconditions and not mere formalities,” it continued. “It does not constitute an avenue for re-agitating matters already adjudicated upon through regular judicial hierarchy,” it added.
Instead, the judgment stated that it is a constitutional mechanism designed to intervene in situations where systemic or structural violations of fundamental rights demand immediate constitutional scrutiny.”
In the present case, the court order said, the petitioner, having availed himself of the remedy of appeal before the Supreme Court and thereafter the constitutional remedy of review under Article 188, which was dismissed, invoked Article 184(3).
“The attempt is, in substance, to challenge a final judicial determination rendered by the apex court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The constitutional scheme, however, does not contemplate a horizontal appeal against a final judgment through invocation of its original jurisdiction,” it added.
“It is equally significant that the dispute at hand concerns compensation, arising out of land acquisition proceedings,” the court said, adding that the matter has traversed the entire judicial hierarchy, including two rounds of appeals before the Supreme Court and a petition filed under Article 184(3).
“The grievance articulated is not one that implicates 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,” the judgment noted.
The order held that the invocation of a review petition against an order sustaining the office objection, while dismissing the CM Appeal which held that the petition filed under Article 184(3) was not competent, therefore, appears to be an attempt by the petitioner to reopen a concluded controversy.
