Registrar lacks judicial power to reject petitions as frivolous: FCC

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) declared that the Registrar (of superior courts) does not possess any judicial power to adjudicate upon the justiciable issue of the maintainability of a petition or appeal on the ground that it is frivolous.

Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi ruled that in an appeal under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, which has been formally adopted by the FCC.

The judgment noted that the Explanation II under Rule 1(6) of Order V read with Rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Rules are the only provisions that authorize the Registrar to refuse to receive a petition, and that too on limited grounds, namely, where the petition has not been filed in accordance with the Rules or is scandalous in nature.

It, however, said: “This Rule does not vest in the Registrar any judicial power to adjudicate upon the justiciable issue of the maintainability of a petition or appeal on the ground that it is frivolous.”

“The determination of such a question necessarily involves judicial consideration and, therefore, lies exclusively within the domain of the Court. At the same time, the Court can discourage the filing of outright non-maintainable, frivolous, and vexatious petitions or appeals by imposing costs on the unscrupulous petitioners or appellants under Rule 3, Part A of Order XXX of the Rules.”

The appellant (Razia Aslam) has challenged the FCC Registrar’s objection order and return notice,whereby the appeal filed under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution, 1973 was returned as being not entertainable on the grounds;

a. That the petitioner has not pointed out what questions of public importance in the instant case are involved with reference to enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, to directly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution.

b. That the petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution for the redressal of an individual grievance.

c. That the ingredients for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution have not been satisfied.

d. That the Notice issued to the respondents is not properly drawn as it is not mentioned therein for what purpose this Constitution Petition is being filed before this Court

e. That instead of availing the remedy available under the law, the petitioner is directly invoking the jurisdiction of the Court.’

The bench partly allowed the miscellaneous appeal against the administrative impugned order of the Registrar, while holding: a) that the objections (a), (b), (c), and (e) contained in the impugned order can only be examined by the Court through judicial determination, and not by the Registrar or by a Judge hearing an appeal-inchambers, on the administrative side. It overruled the objections and set aside the impugned return notice.

The judgment,about objection (e), regarding directly approaching this Court (FCC) in its original jurisdiction without availing the remedy available under the law, noted that after the five-member judgment of the Supreme Court in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat, it is now settled that no writ petition lies against an administrative order of a High Court. Consequently, where the impugned action emanates from the administrative side of a High Court, the ordinary constitutional remedy under writ jurisdiction stands excluded.

The judgment said that in such circumstances, the availability of an alternative remedy must be real, efficacious, and legally permissible. Where the law itself bars or does not recognize a particular remedy, such as a writ against an administrative order of a High Court, the objection regarding non-availing of such remedy loses its force.

The Court noted that in the present case, since the impugned action is an administrative order of a High Court, and no writ petition lies against such an order in view of the law laid down in the Gul Taiz Khan case, the appellant cannot be non-suited on the ground of having failed to avail an alternative remedy. Rather, the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court, prima facie, appears to be the only available legal course. Therefore, the objection is misconceived, untenable, and is liable to be overruled.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026