Review pleas don’t bring dividends

ISLAMABAD: Unlike the parties aggrieved by the Supreme Court judgments in different cases, an accused sentenced to contempt of court has the right to appeal to agitate a decision against him before a larger bench comprising judges other than those who initially penalized him.

Section 19 of The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 deals with the right of appeal. It says notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or the rules for the time being in force, the order passed by a superior court in contempt cases shall be appealable. In the case of an order passed by a single judge of a High Court an intra-court appeal shall lie to a bench of two or more judges; in a case in which the original order has been passed by a division or larger bench of a High Court an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court; in the case of an original order passed by a single judge or a bench of two judges of the Supreme Court an intra-court appeal shall lie to a bench of three judges and in case the original order was passed by a bench of three or more judges an intra-court appeal shall lie to a bench of five or more judges. The appellate court may suspend the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal.

Nehal Hashmi, who has been sentenced for contempt by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa has thirty days’ limitation period to file the appeal, which be heard by five or more judges, nominated by the chief justice.

Apart from one-month jail and a fine of Rs50,000, the court also disqualified Hashmi for five years under Article 63(g) and instantly ousted him as senator. Article 63(g) says a person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Parliament if he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or the integrity, or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has lapsed since his release.

Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has stated that he would have taken a lenient view had he decided Hashmi’s contempt case, and expressed the hope that the accused will and should get relief in appeal.

He also said that there was a lot of substance in the material against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran, which should be pinpointed in a review petition against the judgment of a three-judge bench that gave him a clean chit.

Obviously, if the three-justice panel’s ruling convicting Hashmi is overturned by the larger bench, he will stand restored as senator to continue to hold this office till March 2021. In all other cases adjudicated by the Supreme Court, an aggrieved party has the right to seek a review of the original judgment, but the actual verdict is hardly altered or reversed in such proceedings.

The same set of justices, who handed the first decision, hear the review, and do not change their mind to have a second look at their judgment. At times, while deciding the review petitions, the judges further tighten and strengthen the initial ruling as was recently done in ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s case. Although review pleas did not produce any dividends for the affected parties, yet they do file such petitions hoping against the hope. Same has now been done to PTI leader Jehangir Tareen, who was disqualified under Article 62(1(f) for not declaring his offshore company in his nomination papers. It is always stated, and rightly so that a review is not an appeal. During reviews, only glaring mistakes of technical nature in judgments are corrected only if the judges are convinced.