Islamabad, December 21, 2025: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that all courts in Pakistan, including the Supreme Court, are constitutionally bound to adhere to its judgments, underscoring the FCC’s supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation.
The observation was made by a two-member FCC bench comprising Justices Aamer Farooq and Rozi Khan Barrech while dismissing a petition related to the resumption of agricultural land from the petitioner’s father in the 1970s. In its detailed order, the bench cited Article 189 of the Constitution, noting that while Supreme Court judgments are binding on all other courts, the 27th Constitutional Amendment carves out a clear exception in favour of the FCC. “This exception arises from the 27th Amendment, which establishes that decisions issued by the Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all courts in Pakistan, including the Supreme Court itself,” the order stated.
Referring to Article 190, the bench further held that all executive authorities are obligated to act in accordance with FCC judgments, stressing that the provision ensures uniform application of constitutional interpretations across the judiciary and executive. The court said this framework reinforces the finality and authority of the FCC’s rulings.
Detailing the case, the order noted that the landholding of Karam Ali, the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, had been assessed at 12,691.260 Produce Index Units (PIU), of which 4,819 PIU were declared excess and resumed in village Karak Muhammada. Multiple appeals were filed against the decision, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling in 1986 that rejected Karam Ali’s appeal and settled the matter conclusively.
Despite this finality, Karam Ali’s son, Riaz Hussain, filed a revision petition before the Federal Land Commission in 2010, allegedly concealing the earlier litigation. The FCC observed that the revision petition was accepted by the commission’s chairperson in “clear violation” of Article 189, as a matter already decided by the Supreme Court could not be reopened by a lower forum.
The bench held that the acceptance of the revision petition undermined the finality of the Supreme Court’s judgment and violated Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, as well as the principle of res judicata. Warning against the implications of such actions, the court said they set a dangerous precedent by encouraging attempts to circumvent settled legal principles.
