SC dismisses ‘frivolous' plea of FPSC with costs
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that frivolous litigation not only clogs judicial dockets but also drains public resources and delays justice for genuine litigants.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi held that in the review petition of Federal Public Service Commission. The department had filed the review against the apex court order which was not only 204 days' time barred but also frivolous and vexatious.
The judgment said 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.
Low-merit/failed candidates' particulars: PIC summons FPSC chairman
It noted this becomes more concerning when such frivolous claims are filed by government or public statutory functionaries like the petitioner institution, who are expected to act with higher responsibility and to protect, rather than squander, public resources and judicial time.
The petitioner institution ought to have exercised greater legal discipline and internal scrutiny before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. This case exemplifies a gross misuse of the judicial forum, initiated not to seek legitimate relief, but rather to harass and exhaust the opposing party through abuse of process. In these circumstances, not only is the petition dismissed, but costs are imposed to mark the Court's disapproval of such conduct and to deter the recurrence of similar misuse by public authorities.
The Court further directed that the concerned institution shall undertake an internal inquiry to identify and hold accountable the officials responsible for authorising the filing of this petition. Only through such institutional self-correction can public bodies restore public confidence, reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, conserve precious state resources, and fulfil their constitutional mandate with integrity.
The judgment noted with grave concern that the present petition, filed by a statutory public institution, is not only legally untenable and devoid of merit, but also reflective of a deeper, disturbing culture of risk-averse governance.
Increasingly, public officers, driven by a misplaced fear of personal liability, resort to filing petitions before the highest court of the land not on the strength of legal grounds but to insulate themselves from accountability. Such conduct reduces the judicial forum from a platform for genuine legal address to a tool of bureaucratic self-preservation and indecision.
This mindset must be deprecated in the strongest terms. Litigation is not a substitute for responsible administrative decision making. Public institutions must be strong and confident enough to make lawful decisions and stand by them. A culture built on fear and undue accountability only weakens the institutional spine of governance.
It is imperative that public bodies cultivate the legal courage and internal discipline to act decisively. In institutional strength lies the strength of the nation.
The present petition exemplifies not only a gross abuse of judicial process but also a troubling abdication of institutional responsibility. Courts are not to be approached mechanically or defensively, especially by those entrusted with public functions and legal stewardship.
The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs100,000 for not only being frivolous, vexatious and having squandered the valuable time of the Court but also reflective of institutional abdication and poor governance.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah becomes acting CJP in rare Eid day ceremony
Listen to article Senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, took oath as the Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan on Saturday, in an unprecedented ceremony held on Eid day at the Supreme Court's Lahore Registry. The oath was administered by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, marking a rare event where the swearing-in of the country's top judicial office took place outside the federal capital and on a public holiday. The ceremony was attended by Supreme Court judges Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Advocate General Punjab Amjad Pervez, along with several senior members of the legal fraternity, was also present. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah will serve as Acting Chief Justice until June 10, during the absence of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is currently in Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. Justice Isa is expected to resume his duties upon his return next week.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court granted on Friday the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. On the request of the Justice Department, the judiciary had put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The top court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants DOGE affiliates access to Social Security Administration records. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny the request. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2025 The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group filed suits to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. "Elon Musk may have left Washington DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that SSA had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training. They demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems". "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Selection of CEC chief, ECP members: PTI nominates members for parliamentary body
ISLAMABAD: The opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Thursday formally nominated its members for the parliamentary committee tasked with selecting the new chief election commissioner (CEC) and two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). In a statement on X, the opposition leader in National Assembly Omar Ayub posted a June 2 letter addressed to National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, in which PTI nominated four National Assembly members and two senators for the committee. The nominees include MNAs Asad Qaiser, Gohar Ali Khan, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, Latif Khosa, along with senators Shibli Faraz and Allama Raja Nasir. The move comes after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif invited the opposition leader for consultations on appointing a new CEC, following the expiration of the terms of the current CEC Sikandar Sultan Raja and two ECP members from Sindh and Balochistan on January 26, 2025. The premier's letter highlighted that despite their terms ending, the incumbents have continued to perform duties under Article 215 of the Constitution. According to Article 213 of the Constitution, the prime minister and opposition leader must send three names for each position to the president by mutual consensus. If no consensus is reached, names are submitted to a 12-member parliamentary committee equally representing the treasury and opposition benches, which then recommends a name to the president. The PTI's nominations follow procedural consultations within the party and were announced a day after the prime minister's invitation for dialogue with the opposition. The nominations are part of the constitutionally mandated process under Article 213(2B) for appointing the CEC and members from Sindh and Balochistan. The appointments are pending amid deep political polarisation in the country, with little prior engagement reported between government and opposition leaders on the matter. PTI had earlier filed a petition with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in March, challenging the delay in appointing a new CEC. The petition named the federal government, Senate chairman, National Assembly speaker, and ECP as respondents, alleging constitutional violations due to the delay. It requested the court to compel relevant authorities to form the parliamentary committee and hold meaningful consultations under Article 213. Meanwhile, two other ECP members from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa continue their terms until 2027, ensuring partial continuity within the commission. The selection process remains critical as the ECP is responsible for overseeing the transparency and conduct of elections in Pakistan. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
