ISLAMABAD:
After three weeks of existence, the new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) is struggling to find its bearings and has not yet left a visible mark on the country’s judicial landscape.
Although it has ruled on 99 cases, it has issued no judgments, leaving lawyers and observers waiting to see what kind of jurisprudence the new supreme court intends to develop.
So far, it has settled 99 cases, even as only 11 new cases were filed by the country’s former top court.
Perhaps most tellingly, the FCC has yet to put its stamp on any rulings posted on its website, leaving lawyers in suspense, eager to see what form its jurisprudence will take.
The court is still finding its footing, facing several challenges, starting with finding a permanent home. For now, the FCC benches are working at the premises of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), while rumors suggest that the court’s files are being transferred to the Federal Sharia Court.
With seven justices currently on the bench, the FCC is expected to handle more than 22,000 cases before the Supreme Court. However, the SC website still shows 55,747 pending cases, indicating that the transfer of power is still a work in progress and the wheels of justice are turning slowly.
At the same time, several lawyers are urging the government to allow the FCC, now the nation’s highest court, to operate from the SC building. They argue that, to deliver justice quickly and inexpensively, SC judges should sit in multiple registries.
Following the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the SC became a court of appeals, while the FCC now serves as the supreme court. Its decisions, under Article 189 of the Constitution, are binding on all courts, including the SC.
Sources told The Express PK Press Club that additional judges will be appointed to the FCC once logistical issues are resolved.
Senior lawyers are also pressuring the court to prioritize cases involving interpretation of the law and the Constitution, rather than immediately venturing into matters of public interest related to maladministration or poor governance.
They insist the FCC must first set clear parameters for public interest litigation.
FCC judges also face what many describe as a “battle of perception,” given that they were appointed by the federal government, an entity meant to be the primary litigator before the court. Observers stress that the challenge now is to demonstrate that judges are not “executive-minded” and will dispense justice “without fear or favor.”
A former lawyer said he has yet to see a single order issued by the FCC. He lamented that “the objective was not to create a Constitutional Court, but to destroy the SC. This objective was achieved”, he added.
Despite their strong opposition, none of the senior bars have so far challenged the 27th Amendment before the FCC, exacerbating a serious legitimacy crisis.
Five IHC judges previously raised objections to the FCC’s constitutionality. However, no one appeared on their behalf before the FCC in their transfer case. The court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, dismissed their intra-judicial appeal (ICA) for non-prosecution.
The All Pakistan Lawyers Convention, jointly organized by the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Lahore Bar Association, passed a resolution declaring the FCC “murder of the judiciary”.
Notably, the resolution did not specify that the 27th Amendment would be challenged.
Historically, the senior bars have also not challenged the Interim Constitutional Order (PCO) of November 3, 2007 and the State of Emergency in the apex court headed by the then Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.
Earlier, four IHC judges had tried to challenge the 27th Amendment before the SC, but their petition was not heard.
A section of the legal community still believes that the SC can review the 27th Amendment.
