ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has settled a significant constitutional question regarding the appellate forum for National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases, holding that both second appeals and all related proceedings, including bail applications, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
The ruling was delivered on July 24, 2026, by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
The dispute arose following the establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court under the Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendment and the insertion of Section 32-A into the National Accountability Ordinance on March 5, 2026. The new provision grants a convicted person—or the Prosecutor General Accountability acting on the directions of the NAB Chairman—the right to file a second appeal before the FCC within 30 days against a High Court judgment.
The principal constitutional question before the Court was whether the Supreme Court could continue to hear bail applications arising from NAB cases when the substantive appellate jurisdiction had already been transferred to the FCC.
Counsel for the accused, Amir Mahmood, argued that a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an independent proceeding and that Section 32-A refers only to second appeals by convicted persons without mentioning bail. The Attorney General for Pakistan and NAB, however, contended that the main appeal and all ancillary proceedings stemming from the same case could not be divided between two separate apex courts.
In its 30-page judgment, the Supreme Court held that a combined reading of Articles 175F(1)(a) and 175F(2) of the Constitution together with Sections 32 and 32-A of the National Accountability Ordinance makes it clear that second appeals in NAB cases, as well as all pending ancillary proceedings connected to those appeals, fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court.
The Court emphasized that a bail application is not an independent proceeding detached from the principal case but is an ancillary matter arising directly from it. Allowing the appeal to proceed before the FCC while the bail application remained before the Supreme Court, the bench observed, would create parallel proceedings, legal uncertainty, and the risk of conflicting judicial orders.
The judgment further underscored that judicial jurisdiction cannot be created by the preference of litigants, the consent of parties, past practice, or public pressure. The Court stated that the case was not about institutional rivalry, victory, defeat, or the surrender of judicial authority, but rather about the constitutional allocation of jurisdiction between courts.
It also ruled that NAB’s failure to raise a jurisdictional objection in previous cases could not confer authority upon the Supreme Court where the Constitution and the law no longer vested such jurisdiction. The bench noted that the replacement of the earlier discretionary petition for leave to appeal with a statutory right of second appeal before the FCC means that an accused person’s legal remedy has not been extinguished but merely transferred to a different constitutional forum.
The Supreme Court cautioned against portraying the decision as a power struggle between the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court or as a ruling directed at any particular political figure or case. It clarified that the principle applies equally to NAB, prosecutors, and all accused persons.
The Court concluded that where the law designates the FCC as the final appellate forum for NAB matters, no party may choose the Supreme Court based on convenience or the expectation of a more favorable outcome. The determination of jurisdiction, the judgment held, is governed by law—not by personalities or preference.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional principle that a strong judiciary is one that respects not only the scope of its authority but also its constitutional limits. By directing that a single case and all related proceedings be heard by one competent forum, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional prohibition against forum shopping and reiterated that every court must exercise only the jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution and the law.
