Federal Constitutional Court Declares Its Rulings Binding on All Courts

The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan has ruled that the supremacy of constitutional adjudication now rests with the court and that all courts, including the Supreme Court of Pakistan, are bound by its pronouncements.

The ruling came in a 16-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, which upheld a high court order in a child marriage case while clarifying the court’s constitutional authority.

Clarification of Judicial Hierarchy

The judgment stated that the precedential authority of the court must be understood within the current constitutional framework.

It explained that references to Supreme Court judgments in FCC decisions should not create the impression that the court is automatically bound by those rulings.

The decision noted that Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which previously made Supreme Court decisions binding on all subordinate courts, must now be interpreted in light of the new constitutional structure following the establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court.

According to the ruling, the constitutional hierarchy has been restructured, placing final interpretative authority in constitutional matters with the FCC.

Conditions for Departing From Supreme Court Precedents

The court also outlined principles under which it may depart from earlier Supreme Court precedents.

According to the judgment, such a departure may occur if a precedent:

• Is inconsistent with the text or structure of the Constitution
• Undermines or dilutes fundamental rights
• Reflects judicial overreach into legislative or executive domains
• Conflicts with evolving constitutional values and democratic norms
• Or if another compelling reason exists that advances justice

The ruling emphasised that such departures must be explicit, reasoned and principled.

Precedents Still Hold Persuasive Value

While clarifying its authority, the court said previous judgments of the Supreme Court would continue to hold strong persuasive value, particularly when they are based on sound reasoning and align with constitutional principles.

The judgment also reaffirmed the importance of the doctrine of Stare Decisis, stating that it has not been abolished but recalibrated to prioritise constitutional supremacy.

Observations on Religious Faith

The judgment further noted that faith is a personal matter and that an individual’s declaration of belief should ordinarily be sufficient to establish adherence to a religion.

Referring to Islamic principles, the court observed that conversion to Islam does not require elaborate rituals but involves a declaration of faith and belief in the oneness of Allah, the finality of the Prophethood and the Holy Qur’an.