States that deciding whether to uphold a constitutional petition requires an interpretation of the Constitution
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a clerk does not have the authority to determine whether constitutional motions or appeals should be sustained, stating that such matters can only be decided by the court by judicial decision.
In a detailed 16-page order written by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, the court partially allowed an appeal filed by Razia Aslam against the registrar’s decision to return her constitutional petition under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution.
The ruling clarifies the extent of the registrar’s powers and establishes a clear distinction between administrative functions and judicial authority. The matter arose after the Registrar, through an order and return notice dated February 14, 2026, refused to act on Razia Aslam’s constitutional petition.
The Registrar had raised five objections, saying the petition did not identify any issue of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights, sought relief of an individual grievance through the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the court, did not satisfy the requirements of section 175E(3), contained poorly drafted notice to the respondents and was filed without first resorting to legal remedy.
Justice Rizvi held that the Registrar had exceeded the powers conferred by the Federal Constitutional Court Rules 2025, in ruling that the petition was not admissible.
The court observed that the registrar serves as the executive head of the court registry and exercises administrative, ministerial and certain procedural powers related to the filing and processing of cases. These powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements such as formality control, prescription and other codified defects.
However, the judgment held that deciding whether a constitutional petition is admissible requires the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the application of judicial mind, making it a purely judicial function which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Rizvi observed that allowing the Registrar to determine maintainability would effectively confer judicial powers on an administrative officer, which is neither contemplated by the rules nor in line with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The judgment noted that while the Clerk has the power under the rules to require changes in pleadings, refuse to receive documents filed contrary to procedural requirements, and deny motions that are not filed in accordance with the rules or contain scandalous material, these powers do not extend to the adjudication of substantive legal issues.
The court also clarified the meaning of the term “scandalous” in the regulations, finding that the phrase relates only to defects in form and presentation and cannot be construed to permit the Registrar to reject petitions based on their legal merits or alleged frivolity.
Justice Rizvi further observed that frivolous or vexatious applications can rather be discouraged by the court itself by imposing costs under the applicable rules.
