ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that the authority of constitutional adjudication now rests with it, and that all courts, including the Supreme Court of Pakistan, are bound by its pronouncements.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, ruled that in a child marriage case.
Sixteen-page judgment, authored by Justice Azhar stated, “The frequent references to the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s judgments in our (FCC) decisions may otherwise create the misimpression that Federal Constitution Court is unreservedly bound by those pronouncements in all circumstances, whereas that is not necessarily the position under the prevailing constitutional framework.”
He wrote that Article 189 of the Constitution, which formerly accorded binding force to the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon all courts subordinate thereto, must now be read in light of the altered constitutional architecture.
READ ALSO: FCC says it’s not an appellate authority over final SC judgements
The judgment maintained that upon the establishment of this Court and the conferment upon it of final and binding authority in all matters, particularly constitutional matters, the precedential hierarchy stands constitutionally restructured. Accordingly, the binding force contemplated under Article 189 must be understood as operating subject to the overriding authority of this Court. “The supremacy of constitutional adjudication now vests in this Court, and all courts, including the Supreme Court of Pakistan, are bound by its pronouncements.”
The judgment clarified that the binding force of judicial precedent is not derived from institutional seniority but from the constitutional hierarchy itself. “Where the Constitution expressly vests final interpretative authority in a particular court, its pronouncements necessarily prevail over all others, including those of courts which formerly exercised such jurisdiction,” the judgment added.
It emphasized that the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered before the establishment of this Court do not operate as binding precedents upon this Court. They nonetheless continue to command great persuasive value, particularly when grounded in sound reasoning, reflect a consistent line of authority, and are in harmony with the text, structure, and underlying values of the Constitution.
It is mentioned that the doctrine of stare decisis has not been abrogated; rather, it has been recalibrated to accord primacy to constitutional supremacy. The judicial discipline demands that precedent be reconsidered, not ignored and disregarded in silence, and that continuity be preserved except where departure becomes a constitutional necessity.
Justice Azhar further wrote that this Court (FCC) would ordinarily respect and follow earlier constitutional jurisprudence evolved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, unless it is established that the same is manifestly erroneous, inconsistent with the constitutional text or scheme, or incompatible with fundamental rights and contemporary constitutional values. Any departure from earlier Supreme Court precedent would be reasoned, expressed, and principled. The ultimate touchstone, however, remains the Constitution itself, whose meaning this Court is duty-bound to expound with finality.
The judgment also stated that the departure from earlier Supreme Court precedent may be justified only where this Court finds that such precedent: i) is manifestly inconsistent with the text or structure of the Constitution;(ii) undermines or dilutes fundamental rights;(iii) reflects judicial overreach into legislative or executive domains; or (iv) has become incompatible with evolved constitutional values and democratic norms. (v) Any other compelling reason which tends to advance the cause of justice.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments