Supreme Court Judgments Not Binding on FCC, Bench Says in Review Ruling

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Supreme Court judgments have persuasive value before the Federal Constitutional Court rather than binding force, a three-member FCC bench has stated while dismissing Balochistan Trading Company’s review petition. The Court said it may follow Supreme Court reasoning consistent with the Constitution and the law, and itself drew on that jurisprudence to explain review and leave to appeal. Judgment, page 2

Justice Aamer Farooq wrote the judgment dated 7 October 2026 for a bench also comprising Justices Rozi Khan Barrech and Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. Uploaded to the FCC collection on 29 October, the decision rejects a company’s attempt to reopen a lease dispute after refusal of leave. Its deposited review security was forfeited. Judgment, page 1

The precedent statement concerns the FCC

The Court made the observation while examining review under Article 175G and Order XXVII of its 2026 Practice and Procedure Rules. It noted the correspondence between its review provisions and the Supreme Court framework, regarding the jurisprudence on those provisions as relevant to its own process. Judgment, page 2

The distinction is between compulsory precedent and reasoning that a court finds persuasive. The FCC did not declare Supreme Court judgments void or irrelevant. It did not authorize High Courts or subordinate courts to disregard the precedent rules applicable to them. The statement expressly addresses Supreme Court judgments before the FCC. Judgment, page 2

Review is a limited corrective jurisdiction

The bench confined review to an apparent error or a mistake or shortcoming producing a miscarriage of justice. It is not another hearing of arguments already considered. The routine filing of review after an adverse result was discouraged. Judgment, page 3

The company’s petition ultimately failed because it identified no error apparent on the record and repeated the grounds advanced at the leave stage. Reasserting those arguments did not supply a valid corrective ground. Judgment, page 8

The certificate, security and costs requirements

Under Order XXVII Rule 4, the Advocate-on-Record or the party must append a reasoned opinion addressing maintainability and justification for review. The FCC emphasized the care required in giving that certificate. Judgment, page 3

The Court also explained that frivolous or vexatious review can attract costs of at least Rs25,000 under Rule 5, alongside the stated possibility of disciplinary proceedings against the Advocate-on-Record. The corresponding costs consequence for an unrepresented party was also discussed. Judgment, page 3

Rule 6 requires Rs50,000 as security before a review application is entertained and permits forfeiture in the circumstances described. Security is distinct from a separate costs order. Here the operative direction forfeited the deposited security; it did not additionally order payment of Rs25,000. Judgment, page 4

The judgment says that appropriate review cases may be disposed of by circulation without oral hearing unless the Court considers a hearing essential. That is part of its explanation of the restricted review process. Judgment, page 4

Leave refusal is different from deciding an appeal

The company complained that the earlier order lacked detailed reasons. The FCC explained that Article 175F(1)(c) requires leave for an appeal from a High Court decision under Article 199. A leave petition does not begin as an appeal of right. It enters the appellate stage when permission is granted. Judgment, page 4

Refusal does not necessarily endorse every reason given by the High Court. Its judgment does not merge into a refusal of leave. Where leave is granted and the case is decided in appeal, the appellate judgment supplies the final determination and the merger principle applies. Judgment, page 5

Although reasons are generally desirable, the bench held that a leave decision may be expressed by a non-speaking order. The lack of detailed reasons alone therefore did not justify review. The holding addresses this leave jurisdiction; it should not be expanded into permission for every court to decide every proceeding without reasons. Judgment, page 6

Payment did not establish lease restoration

Relying on sections 112 and 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the company argued that payment of rent arrears should restore its lease. The FCC examined the earlier orders and found a voluntary offer to pay, without an express recorded agreement that the respondents waived forfeiture or accepted restoration. Judgment, page 7

The suggestion that restoration was implicit was rejected. The earlier leave proceedings had been disposed of as not pressed, and no relevant order restoring the lease or setting aside the earlier High Court decision was identified. That was a conclusion on the record before the bench, rather than a universal proposition that payment can never have consequences in a lease dispute. Judgment, page 7

The operative result

The petition was dismissed and security forfeited under Rule 6. The wider significance is the FCC’s explanation of its position on precedent, the distinction between leave and appeal, and the requirement for a demonstrable corrective ground in review. Judgment, page 8

Frequently asked questions

Did the FCC say Supreme Court judgments have no legal value?

No. It described them as persuasive before the FCC and capable of being followed where consistent with the Constitution and law. It did not declare those judgments invalid or authorize other courts to disregard applicable precedent. Judgment, page 2.

Does refusal of leave endorse every High Court finding?

No. The judgment distinguishes refusal of permission to appeal from a decision in appeal. Refusal does not necessarily endorse the reasoning below or cause merger. Judgment, page 5.

Is a non-speaking leave order alone a review ground?

No. The applicant must show a recognized basis within the narrow review jurisdiction. Lack of detailed reasons alone was insufficient. Judgment, page 6.

Are Rs50,000 security and Rs25,000 costs the same?

No. Rule 6 requires the review security. Costs of at least Rs25,000 are a separate possible consequence of frivolous or vexatious review under Rule 5. This case forfeited security without a separate additional costs direction. Judgment, page 3.

Did payment automatically restore this lease?

No. The orders recorded a voluntary offer to pay without an express understanding that forfeiture was waived or the lease restored. The conclusion rested on this record. Judgment, page 7.

Can review be decided without oral hearing?

The Court said that in appropriate cases review may be disposed of by circulation unless a hearing is considered essential. That observation concerns its review procedure. Judgment, page 4.

Sources and complete judgment

• Read the full judgment.
• Download judgment PDF.
• Judgment particulars and searchable summary.
• Official court PDF.
• Federal Constitutional Court judgment collection.