The Federal Constitutional Court upholds the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment, reaffirming that review jurisdiction is limited and that constitutionally prescribed legislative procedures must be followed.
ISLAMABAD, October 28, 2026: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has dismissed 1,178 review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s December 28, 2021, judgment on the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act 2013.
In its 16-page judgment, Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan held that review jurisdiction could not be treated as appellate jurisdiction and that settled matters could not be reopened without an apparent error on the record meeting the required legal threshold.
The court recalled that a two-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, had dismissed an appeal in Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Mustafa on December 28, 2021, concerning the constitutional validity of the Income Support Levy Act 2013.
While review petitions against that decision remained pending, a three-member Supreme Court bench allowed an appeal in another case involving a substantially similar legal question on June 21, 2022. The judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, raised concerns about judicial discipline and institutional conventions.
The FCC observed that a subsequent decision in a separate case did not automatically overturn an earlier judgment. Where review petitions were pending, another bench was expected to respect the previously decided legal question.
The court emphasised that consistency in judicial decisions and adherence to institutional principles were essential to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.
Constitutional procedure at the centre of the dispute
The central issue was whether the Income Support Levy could constitutionally be enacted as a Money Bill. Referring to Articles 70 and 73 of the Constitution, the court stated that prescribed legislative procedures were constitutional requirements rather than mere formalities.
The judgment also stressed that the Senate, which represents Pakistan’s federating units, could not be excluded from the legislative process where a bill did not fall within the constitutionally defined scope of a Money Bill.
Legislation requiring approval from both Houses of Parliament could not lawfully be enacted by bypassing the Senate, the court observed.
The FCC reiterated that review jurisdiction was exceptional and intended to correct apparent errors on the record, not to reconsider cases as though hearing appeals.
It further stated that a judicial decision remained effective unless the relevant law was amended, repealed or declared unconstitutional. A previously decided matter could not be reopened merely because another bench subsequently adopted a different interpretation.
The Sindh High Court had earlier declined to permit the levy under the Income Support Levy Act 2013. The Supreme Court’s December 2021 ruling held that the constitutionally prescribed legislative procedure had not been followed before the Finance Act was enacted.
The FCC’s dismissal of the 1,178 review petitions leaves that earlier judgment intact.