ISLAMABAD:
Three weeks into its existence, the newly created Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) is struggling to find its bearings and has yet to leave a visible mark on the country’s judicial landscape.
Despite deciding 99 cases, it has not issued a single ruling, leaving lawyers and observers waiting to see what kind of jurisprudence the new high court intends to craft.
So far, it has resolved 99 cases, although the country’s former highest court has only filed 11 new cases.
Perhaps most telling, the FCC has yet to put its seal on any rulings posted on its website, leaving lawyers on tenterhooks, eager to see what form their jurisprudence will take.
The court is still finding its footing, burdened by several challenges, starting with the search for a permanent home. For now, the FCC courts are working in the premises of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), while rumors suggest that the court’s records are being transferred to the Federal Shariat Court.
With seven judges currently on board, the FCC is expected to take on more than 22,000 Supreme Court cases. However, the Supreme Court website still shows 55,747 pending cases, indicating that the handover is still in process and the wheels of justice are slowly turning.
Meanwhile, several lawyers are urging the government to allow the FCC, now the country’s highest court, to operate from the SC building. They argue that to deliver expeditious and economical justice, SC courts should be part of multiple registries.
Following the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the SC has become an appeals court, while the FCC now functions as the highest court. Its decisions, according to article 189 of the Constitution, are binding on all courts, including the TS.
Sources told The Express PAkGazette that additional judges will be appointed to the FCC once logistical issues are resolved.
Senior lawyers are also pushing the court to prioritize cases involving interpretation of the law and the Constitution, rather than immediately venturing into public interest matters involving maladministration or poor governance.
They insist that the FCC must first define clear parameters for public interest litigation.
FCC judges also face what many describe as a “perception battle,” given that they were appointed by the federal government, an entity expected to be the primary litigant before the court. Observers stress that the challenge now is to demonstrate that judges do not have an “executive mentality” and will administer justice “without fear or favor.”
A former top legal official said he has yet to see a single order issued by the FCC. He regretted that “the objective was not to create a constitutional court, it was to destroy the TS. That objective has been met,” he added.
Despite their strong opposition, none of the colleges have so far challenged the 27th Amendment before the FCC, deepening a serious crisis of legitimacy.
Five IHC judges had previously raised objections regarding the constitutionality of the FCC. However, no one appeared on his behalf before the FCC in his transfer case. The court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, dismissed his intra-judicial appeal (ICA) for lack of prosecution.
The Pakistan Bar Convention, jointly organized by the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Lahore Bar Association, passed a resolution declaring the FCC a “murder of the judiciary.”
Notably, the resolution did not say that the 27th Amendment would be challenged.
Historically, the high courts also did not challenge the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) of November 3, 2007 and the emergency before the apex court headed by then Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.
Earlier, four IHC judges had tried to challenge the 27th Amendment before the SC, but their petition was not accepted.
A section of the legal community still believes that the SC can examine the 27th Amendment.
