In rejecting a petition for review against the objections of the Office of the Registrar, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that the Constitution does not provide for perpetual litigation, since judicial discipline requires that there be a term for adjudication. An FCC division bench issued the seven-page judgment, authored by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, on a review petition against a Supreme Court order that had upheld the Registrar’s Office’s objections to a declaration 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 application". He said the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has consistently reaffirmed that Article 184(3) is not an appellate or review provision. Prior to the 27th Amendment, the order states, Article 184(3) conferred original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in matters of public importance relating to the implementation of fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution.
"The scope and ambit of this provision was authoritatively outlined in the Benazir Bhutto case in 1988, in which it was held that the jurisdiction is of an extraordinary nature and is intended to address issues affecting the public at large rather than serving as a forum for redressal of individual grievances arising out of concluded litigations." said the sentence.
"The court stressed that public importance and respect for fundamental rights are jurisdictional preconditions and not mere formalities," continuous. "It does not constitute a way to revive matters already resolved through the regular judicial hierarchy," he added. Instead, the ruling stated that it is a constitutional mechanism designed to intervene in situations where systemic or structural violations of fundamental rights require immediate constitutional scrutiny."
In the present case, according to the court order, the petitioner, having filed the appeal before the Supreme Court and subsequently the constitutional review petition under Article 188, which was dismissed, invoked Article 184(3).
"The attempt is, in essence, to challenge a final judicial determination made by the superior court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The constitutional scheme, however, does not contemplate a horizontal appeal against a final sentence… by invoking its original jurisdiction," he added.
"It is equally significant that the controversy at hand concerns compensation derived from land acquisition procedures," the court said, adding that the matter has traversed the entire judicial hierarchy, including two rounds of appeals to the Supreme Court and a petition filed under Article 184(3).
"The articulated complaint does not imply the application of the fundamental rights of the general public; rather, it is a continuation of a private dispute between the legal representatives of a landowner and the provincial government," states the sentence. The order held that the invocation of a review petition against an order supporting the suo motu objection, while dismissing CM’s 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 dispute.
