ISLAMABAD: As the 13-judge Constitutional Bench takes up review petitions in the reserved seats case, a regular bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the growing trend of filing review petitions in a casual and mechanical manner, terming it a veiled attempt to re-argue matters already conclusively adjudicated.

“While the right of access to courts is a cornerstone of our constitutional framework, it is not an unqualified or limitless right,” observed Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in a judgement he authored.

This access, the nine-page judgement emphasised, must be exercised responsibly and in a manner that upholds the dignity and finality of judicial proceedings, adding that when litigants file repetitive and meritless petitions or adopt tactics aimed at delaying the conclusion of proceedings, they undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Justice Shah headed a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court that heard a set of review petitions filed by the Charsadda district education officer against the apex court’s Sept 29, 2022 verdict.

Repetitive, meritless pleas undermine judicial integrity, writes Justice Shah in nine-page judgement

Previously, the Supreme Court had upheld the Peshawar High Court’s decision dismissing challenges filed by candidates who were denied appointments as primary school teachers (PSTs) due to discrepancies between their domicile certificates and CNIC addresses.

The apex court affirmed that, under Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, it is the domicile certificate — not the CNIC address — that determines a candidate’s permanent residence for employment purposes.

The court held that candidates who had passed competitive examinations and possessed valid domicile certificates could not be denied appointments on technical grounds. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, leading to the filing of review petitions, which were ultimately dismissed with a cost of Rs100,000.

Justice Shah elaborated that the phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”, as used in Article 188 of the Constitution for filing review petitions, cannot be precisely or exhaustively defined, as an element of indefiniteness is inherent in its nature.

Such an error, whether of law or fact, must be self-evident, immediately apparent, and not require extensive discussion or reasoning. If detecting the error involves prolonged debate or analysis, it does not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record, the judgement stated.

It further emphasised that a review petition cannot be used to reintroduce previously rejected arg­uments in an attempt to reopen conclusions already reached by the cou­rt. It reiterated that review power should not be confused with appellate power, which allows a superior court to correct errors of subordinate courts. Review proceedings are distinct and must strictly adhere to the limitations prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

Thus, the power of review under Article 188 of the Constitution, governed by the Supreme Court Rules and the CPC, is not an open invitation to revisit judgements merely due to dissatisfaction with the outcome. It is a limited jurisdiction, exercised with great caution and restraint. The judgement stressed that review petitions cannot be used to re-argue settled points of law or fact.

The Supreme Court also highlighted that over 2.2 million cases are currently pending in courts across Pakistan, including approximately 56,635 before the apex court. A significant proportion of these consist of review petitions.

The court lamented that frivolous, vexatious, and speculative litigation substantially contributes to this backlog, artificially inflating court dockets and obstructing the timely resolution of genuine claims. Such misuse of the judicial process not only squanders limited judicial resources but also erodes public confidence in the justice system.

Frivolous litigation has become a serious threat, choking the judicial machinery, the judgement noted. It emphasised that resources — both human and material — that should be dedicated to legitimate disputes are instead wasted on baseless claims. This form of litigation, the court added, must be unequivocally discouraged and systematically eliminated.

Justice Shah stressed that the imposition of costs, as provided under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, serves as a crucial deterrent against abuse of the judicial process. It reinforces judicial discipline, promotes timely adjudication, and protects the integrity of the legal system.

The judgement concluded by underscoring the imperative that courts at all levels actively employ cost sanctions as a necessary tool to ensure judicial economy, procedural fairness, and timely justice. Only by eliminating vexatious and meritless claims can the judiciary direct its limited resources toward causes that genuinely deserve legal redress.

Published in Dawn, May 7th, 2025