ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated its earlier stance, holding that although the right of access to courts is a cornerstone of the constitutional framework, it is not an unqualified or unlimited right.

“Such access must be exercised with responsibility and in a manner that upholds the dignity and finality of judicial proceedings,” obse­r­ved Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah while deciding a review petition filed by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) against the Sept 14, 2023, SC judgement.

The review petition was heard by a two-judge SC bench consisting of Justice Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.

When litigants initiate repetitive and meritless petitions, they erode the integrity of the judicial process, Justice Shah regretted in a three-page judgement. He said the frivolous litigation not only clogs judicial dockets but also drains public resources and delays justice for genuine litigants.

This is the second time the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the rising trend of filing unnecessary review petitions. Earlier, Justice Shah, in a different judgement, had also regretted the growing practice of filing review petitions in a casual and mechanical manner, terming it a veiled attempt to re-argue matters already conclusively adjudicated.

Expresses concern over rising trend of filing unnecessary review pleas

The judgement explained that when public bodies initiate litigation, they do so not as private litigants pursuing personal interests, but as custodians of the law and fiduciaries of the public interest. They are under an onerous obligation to act fairly, responsibly, and in accordance with the Constitution.

It said the petitioner institution (FPSC) ought to have exercised greater legal discipline and internal scrutiny before invoking the jurisdiction of this court, adding that this case exemplifies a gross misuse of the judicial forum, initiated not to seek legitimate relief, but to harass and exhaust the opposing party through abuse of process.

The court also reserved some flak for the FPSC, expressing grave concern that the present petition, filed by a statutory public institution, was not only legally untenable and devoid of merit but also reflective of a deeper, disturbing culture of risk-averse governance.

Accordingly, the bench, while dismissing the review petition, imposed a cost of Rs100,000 under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, not only for being frivolous, vexatious and for having squandered the valuable time of the court, but also for being reflective of institutional abdication and poor governance.

The cost will be deposited within 15 days with any charitable institution recognised under the Thirteenth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

The court also ordered that the judgement be sent to the law and justice secretary, as well as the AGP Office, who will ensure its immediate circulation to all ministries.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2025