The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the limits of the Registrar's powers in superior courts. In a ruling authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, the court declared that the Registrar has no judicial authority to reject a petition or appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous or not maintainable. Such questions, the court held, can only be decided by a judicial bench.
Registrar's Powers Limited Under Supreme Court Rules, 2025
The court examined the scope of the Registrar's authority under the Supreme Court Rules, 2025. It found that the Registrar's powers are confined to refusing petitions that fail to meet procedural requirements or are scandalous in nature. The Registrar cannot delve into substantive issues of maintainability, which require judicial determination.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by Razia Aslam against a return notice issued by the Registrar. The Registrar had declared her constitutional petition non-maintainable, arguing that it did not involve a question of public importance or the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 175E(3) of the Constitution.
Court Emphasizes Judicial Determination for Maintainability
The FCC held that deciding whether a petition is maintainable requires judicial determination and falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the bench. The court observed that while courts can discourage frivolous and vexatious litigation by imposing costs on unscrupulous litigants, the Registrar cannot decide such issues administratively.
The bench partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Registrar's return notice. It ruled that objections relating to maintainability, public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights, and the availability of alternative remedies could only be examined by the court—not by the Registrar or a judge hearing an administrative appeal in chambers.
Reference to Precedent: Gul Taiz Khan Marwat Case
On the objection that the petitioner had bypassed an alternative legal remedy, the FCC referred to the Supreme Court's five-member judgment in the Gul Taiz Khan Marwat case. That judgment held that no constitutional writ petition lies against an administrative order of a High Court. The court observed that where the impugned action originates from the administrative side of a High Court, the ordinary writ remedy is unavailable.
In such circumstances, the court said, an alternative remedy must be real, effective, and legally recognized. Since no writ petition was maintainable against the administrative order in question, the appellant could not be denied relief for failing to pursue such a remedy.
Registrar's Objection Declared Misconceived
Holding that approaching the FCC appeared to be the only available legal course, the court declared the Registrar's objection misconceived and untenable. The judgment reinforces that questions of maintainability must be decided through judicial proceedings rather than administrative scrutiny.
