ISLAMABAD: The Registrar’s Office of Pakistan’s Supreme Court has refused to receive a petition challenging the 27th Constitutional Amendment, stating that petitions of this nature can be filed before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The petition was submitted by former judge Justice (retd.) Shabbir Raza Rizvi, who sought to challenge the 27th Constitutional Amendment before the Supreme Court.
However, the Supreme Court Registrar’s Office declined to receive the petition.
According to the Registrar’s Office, matters of this nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court and therefore cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court.
The office maintained that petitions challenging the constitutional amendment should be filed before the Federal Constitutional Court instead.
The refusal has added another legal development to the controversy surrounding the 27th Constitutional Amendment, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of the country’s superior courts following the constitutional changes.
The latest petition was submitted by Justice (retd.) Shabbir Raza Rizvi, but the Registrar’s Office did not accept it for processing.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court Registrar’s Office has declined to receive a petition challenging the amendment.
The Supreme Court Office had previously also refused to accept another petition filed against the 27th Constitutional Amendment, citing similar jurisdictional considerations.
The development raises questions about the changing constitutional jurisdiction of Pakistan’s courts and the appropriate forum for challenges concerning constitutional amendments.
The Registrar’s Office has effectively taken the position that such challenges should now be brought before the Federal Constitutional Court rather than the Supreme Court.
The distinction between the two judicial forums has become particularly significant in light of the constitutional changes introduced through the 27th Amendment.
For the petitioners seeking to challenge the amendment, the Registrar’s decision means that they may have to approach the Federal Constitutional Court to have their legal arguments heard.
The refusal to receive the petition does not, by itself, constitute a judicial ruling on the validity or constitutionality of the 27th Amendment. Rather, it concerns the forum in which such a challenge should be presented.
A registrar’s office generally deals with procedural and administrative matters concerning the filing of cases. Therefore, the decision not to receive the petition on jurisdictional grounds is distinct from a judicial determination on the substantive arguments raised against the amendment.
The petition submitted by Justice (retd.) Shabbir Raza Rizvi will consequently not proceed before the Supreme Court through the filing route used in the latest attempt.
The Registrar’s Office has instead indicated that the Federal Constitutional Court is the appropriate forum for such petitions.
The issue could continue to develop if the petitioner decides to challenge the Registrar’s decision or files the petition before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The repeated refusal to receive petitions against the 27th Amendment also indicates that the Supreme Court Registrar’s Office is consistently applying its stated position regarding jurisdiction.
As the constitutional debate continues, the question of which court has authority to hear challenges against the amendment could itself become an important legal issue.
For now, the Supreme Court Registrar’s Office has made its position clear: petitions of this nature should be filed before the Federal Constitutional Court rather than the Supreme Court.
About The Author
