The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that parallel appeals cannot be filed against final decisions of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan dismissed a review petition challenging a Supreme Court order, emphasizing that the Constitution does not permit endless litigation.
The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a review petition filed against the Supreme Court’s order dated September 12, 2024.
In a written decision, CJ Khan ruled that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to hear parallel appeals against final Supreme Court decisions.
The court clarified that even after the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the Federal Constitutional Court does not have jurisdiction to monitor, review, or hear appeals regarding Supreme Court judgements.
Constitution does not allow endless litigation
The court emphasized that the legal process must eventually reach a conclusion.
“The Constitution does not allow endless litigation. The legal battle must end somewhere,” the Constitutional Court stated in its written judgement.
According to the court, once the Supreme Court has issued a final decision and rejected a review petition, the matter effectively comes to an end.
Article 188 review powers limited
The judgement also explained the limits of Article 188 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to review its own judgements.
The court said the right of review under Article 188 is limited, and once the Supreme Court has rejected a review petition, the dispute cannot be reopened through other legal avenues.
The bench further ruled that the final decision of the Supreme Court cannot be reopened in the name of a corrective review.
Article 184(3) only to public interest cases
The court also clarified the scope of Article 184(3), which grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers in matters of public importance.
According to the judgement, the powers under Article 184(3) are intended only for issues of public interest and cannot be invoked for individual or private disputes.
The court specifically noted that the case in question was a private land compensation dispute, not a matter of public importance.
The case involved a land compensation dispute between the petitioner and the Multan Development Authority (MDA). According to the petitioner’s stance, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in 2015.
However, the petitioner argued that the ruling was later overturned by a two-member Supreme Court bench in 2022.
The petitioner had approached the Constitutional Court seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s September 12, 2024 order, but the court dismissed the plea.
Finality of SC judgements
In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court reaffirmed that Supreme Court judgements are final and cannot be challenged through parallel constitutional appeals.
The ruling underscores the principle that legal proceedings must reach finality, preventing prolonged litigation over private disputes.
.jpg)
