ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that frivolous litigation not only clogs judicial dockets but also drains public resources and delays justice for genuine litigants.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi held that in the review petition of Federal Public Service Commission. The department had filed the review against the apex court order which was not only 204 days’ time barred but also frivolous and vexatious.
The judgment said when public bodies initiate litigation, they do so not as private litigants pursuing personal interests, but as custodians of the law and fiduciaries of the public interest. They are under an onerous obligation to act fairly, responsibly, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Low-merit/failed candidates’ particulars: PIC summons FPSC chairman
It noted this becomes more concerning when such frivolous claims are filed by government or public statutory functionaries like the petitioner institution, who are expected to act with higher responsibility and to protect, rather than squander, public resources, and judicial time.
The petitioner institution ought to have exercised greater legal discipline and internal scrutiny before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. This case exemplifies a gross misuse of the judicial forum, initiated not to seek legitimate relief, but rather to harass and exhaust the opposing party through abuse of process. In these circumstances, not only is the petition dismissed, but costs are imposed to mark the Court’s disapproval of such conduct and to deter the recurrence of similar misuse by public authorities.
The Court further directed that the concerned institution shall undertake an internal inquiry to identify and hold accountable the officials responsible for authorising the filing of this petition. Only through such institutional self-correction can public bodies restore public confidence, reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, conserve precious state resources, and fulfil their constitutional mandate with integrity.
The judgment noted with grave concern that the present petition, filed by a statutory public institution, is not only legally untenable and devoid of merit, but also reflective of a deeper, disturbing culture of risk-averse governance.
Increasingly, public officers, driven by a misplaced fear of personal liability, resort to filing petitions before the highest court of the land not on the strength of legal grounds but to insulate themselves from accountability. Such conduct reduces the judicial forum from a platform for genuine legal address to a tool of bureaucratic self-preservation and indecision.
This mindset must be deprecated in the strongest terms. Litigation is not a substitute for responsible administrative decision making. Public institutions must be strong and confident enough to make lawful decisions and stand by them. A culture built on fear and undue accountability only weakens the institutional spine of governance.
It is imperative that public bodies cultivate the legal courage and internal discipline to act decisively. In institutional strength lies the strength of the nation.
The present petition exemplifies not only a gross abuse of judicial process but also a troubling abdication of institutional responsibility. Courts are not to be approached mechanically or defensively, especially by those entrusted with public functions and legal stewardship.
The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs100,000 for not only being frivolous, vexatious and having squandered the valuable time of the Court but also reflective of institutional abdication and poor governance.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.