Says deciding maintainability of constitutional petition requires interpretation of Constitution
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a court registrar has no authority to determine the maintainability of constitutional petitions or appeals, declaring that such questions can only be decided by the court through judicial determination.
In a detailed 16-page order authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, the court partly 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 judgment clarifies the scope of the registrar’s powers and draws a clear distinction between administrative functions and judicial authority. The case arose after the registrar, through an order and return notice dated February 14, 2026, refused to entertain Razia Aslam’s constitutional petition.
The registrar had raised five objections, stating that the petition failed to identify any question of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights, sought redress of an individual grievance through the court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, did not satisfy the requirements of Article 175E(3), contained an improperly drafted notice to respondents, and had been filed without first availing the legal remedy.
Justice Rizvi held that the registrar exceeded the powers conferred under the Federal Constitutional Court Rules, 2025, by deciding that the petition was not maintainable.
The court observed that the registrar functions as the executive head of the court’s office and exercises administrative, ministerial and certain procedural powers relating to the filing and processing of cases. These powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements such as scrutiny of form, limitation and other codified defects.
However, the judgment held that deciding whether a constitutional petition is maintainable requires interpretation of constitutional provisions and the application of judicial mind, making it a purely judicial function that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Rizvi observed that allowing the Registrar to determine maintainability would effectively confer judicial powers upon an administrative functionary, something neither contemplated by the Rules nor consistent with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The judgment noted that while the registrar has authority under the rules to require amendments in pleadings, decline to receive documents filed contrary to procedural requirements and refuse petitions that are not filed in accordance with the Rules or contain scandalous material, these powers do not extend to adjudicating substantive legal issues.
The court also clarified the meaning of “scandalous” under the rules, holding that the expression relates only to defects in form and presentation and cannot be interpreted to permit the Registrar to reject petitions on the basis of their legal merits or alleged frivolousness.
Justice Rizvi further observed that frivolous or vexatious petitions can instead be discouraged by the court itself through the imposition of costs under the applicable Rules.
