Maintainability

--- Arts. 175E & 188 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability of petition against a final judgment of the Supreme Court --- Doctrine of finality and judicial discipline --- Scope --- Petitioner, having availed the remedy of appeal before the Supreme Court and thereafter the constitutional remedy of review under Article 188 (which was dismissed), invoked Article 184(3) --- The attempt is, in substance, to challenge a final judicial determination rendered by the apex Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction --- Petitioner has argued that the constitutional reconfiguration introduced by the 27th Amendment, particularly the incorporation of Article 175E(3), permits a broader examination --- However, constitutional provisions of similar nature, even after an amendment in the constitution, must be construed harmoniously within the structural framework of the Constitution --- Nothing in Article 175E(3) suggests that the Federal Constitutional Court is vested with a supervisory, review or appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in appeal and affirmed in review --- The jurisdiction continues to be conditioned upon the existence of a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights --- It cannot be transmuted into a collateral appellate mechanism --- If such a course were to be sanctioned, it would render Article 188 redundant and destabilize the doctrine of finality --- The Constitution does not envisage perpetual litigation --- Judicial discipline demands that there must be a terminus to adjudication --- The office objection, therefore, was grounded in constitutional principle and cannot be faulted.

--- Art. 199 --- Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983), Arts. 9, 29 & 32 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib --- Scope --- The remedy provided under Article 32 is undoubtedly a statutory recourse available to an aggrieved party; however, it does not operate as an absolute bar to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, particularly where the impugned order is ex facie contrary to Article 9 or has been passed without jurisdiction.

--- Art. 199 --- Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983), Arts. 9 & 29 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib --- Scope --- A constitutional court may interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution where an order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib suffers from want or excess of jurisdiction, is coram non judice, or has been passed in violation of the law.

--- Art. 175-F --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Interim order --- Scope --- Although it is generally correct that ad-interim orders are not ordinarily disturbed due to their temporary nature, such orders may nevertheless be interfered with where a jurisdictional defect is present or an illegality has occurred, therefore, empowering Federal Constitutional Court to assess interim orders provided the preceding conditions are met.