SC reserves judgment on ruling review law

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday reserved its judgment on identical petitions challenging the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar reserved the judgment on the matter after the attorney general concluded his arguments, defending the impugned law.

Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Vardak and the Jurists Foundation through its CEO Riaz Hanif Rahi had challenged the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) 2023.

Similarly, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had also prayed to the court to be impleaded as party to the instant case and its counsel Barrister Ali Zafar had also extensively argued before the court On Monday, after the conclusion of the attorney general’s arguments, the court asked the petitioners’ counsel to submit their written arguments in rebuttal within three days.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that they (judges) would consult one another and announce the judgment soon.

Earlier, continuing his arguments, Attorney General Mansoor Usman argued on the legislative authority of Parliament and submitted that the apex court had issued many judgments over the legislative power of Parliament.

The chief justice, however, questioned as to how the entire constitution could be ignored for a constitutional matter.

The AG submitted that Article 188 of the Constitution does not limit the scope of the review; hence, widening its scope in cases pertaining to Article 184(3) of Constitution is not discriminatory.

Advancing his arguments, the AG contended that appeals are filed in the Supreme Court against the decisions of high courts or tribunals while cases pertaining to Article 184(3) of the Constitution are directly heard by the apex court.

The chief justice, however, observed that the petitioners have questioned the manner in which the scope of review has been widened, adding that the Indian Supreme Court has not given the right of appeal in cases of such nature. “The question arises as to whether the scope of revision could be widened through a piece of legislation,” the CJP said.

The attorney general dispelled the impression that some people will be exploited while giving the right of an appeal in revision, adding that before the enactment of the Act no procedure was available for review in Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

He contended that the aggrieved parties must be allowed to raise every legal point in revision, adding that even those legal points not highlighted earlier can’t change the facts of the case.

He submitted that even the Indian Supreme Court had accepted raising new points in the revision.

The chief justice, however, observed that the government can make legislation, but giving the right of an appeal in revision does not seem correct. He added that the decision pertaining to giving the right of an appeal in Article 184(3) of the Constitution should be made with care.

“How both review and appeal could be viewed jointly,” the CJP remarked, adding that the court will have to keep in mind the facts as well.

Mansoor Usman Awan, however, contended that the scope of review should also be expanded like that of Article 184(3).

Referring to the enlargement of the bench for hearing the appeal in review, the attorney general submitted that a judge who gives decision in the main case could become part of the review hearing as well, adding that the constitution of a bench for the purpose has been left to the court under the Act.

Justice Munib Akhtar, however, asked whether a four-member bench could hear the review if a three-member bench gives a decision.

“Larger means larger, no matter how many judges are [on the bench],” the AG replied.

The chief justice observed that all are agreed that the legislature could widen the scope of review; however, by enacting the impugned law, the government has converted the review into an appeal for which solid reasons had to be given.

“There should be a remedy against cases adjudicated upon under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, but remedy should be given in accordance with constitutional requirements,” the CJP remarked.

Defending the law, the attorney general claimed that it is not meant for interfering in the independence of the judiciary, adding that if someone has any objection to the law, they could approach the high court in this regard.

At this, Justice Munib Akhtar observed that the law under challenge is directly related to the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and questioned as to whether the apex court is not the appropriate forum for challenging the law.

Later, the AG while concluding his arguments pleaded with the court to dismiss the instant petitions, challenging the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2o23.

Meanwhile, Sajeel Shehryar Swati, counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), requested the court to hear him for a short while. However, the court asked him to submit a written synopsis.

During the hearing, PTI counsel Barrister Ali Zafar argued before the court through video link from the Lahore Registry and submitted that the attorney general has not replied to basic questions.

He was opposed to constituting a larger bench for hearing the review as he submitted that by doing so the entire hearing would be conducted again.

In this respect, he suggested that instead of constituting a larger bench, the original bench may correct the error if made by the earlier judgment.

Later, the court reserved the judgment while the chief justice said that after consultation with the judges, the verdict will be announced soon.