— Bandial says court verdict only after a ‘thorough discussion’
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday reached a decision to reserve the verdict regarding the petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023.
The law aims to help and strengthen the Supreme Court in reviewing its own judgements. It expands the court’s authority to review any judgement under Article 188 of the Constitution, ensuring the right to justice.
It says the review process will be similar to an appeal, considering both facts and the law. A review petition will be heard by a larger bench than the one that made the original judgement. The petitioner can choose any advocate from the Supreme Court for the review.
The law also allows individuals who were affected by an order made under Article 184(3) of the Constitution before the law was enacted to file a review petition within 60 days of the law coming into effect.
The review petition must be filed within 60 days of the original order, and the provisions of this law will take precedence over other laws, rules, regulations, or court judgements, including those of the Supreme Court and high court.
After both sides presented their arguments, the case was heard by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and accompanied by Justice Ijaz ul-Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar.
The petitions, filed by Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Vardak, and the Jurists Foundation represented by CEO Riaz Hanif Rahi, contest the legality of the aforementioned law before the highest court in the country.
During the proceedings Monday, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Syed Ali Zafar concluded their arguments, leading the Supreme Court to reserve its verdict.
Justice Bandial said the court would announce the verdict after a thorough discussion.
AGP Mansoor, in his arguments, defended the right to appeal cases under Article 184(3), highlighting that such cases have a distinct jurisdiction for review.
Justice Bandial commented that while the government has the authority to legislate, granting the right of appeal in revision cases might not be appropriate. He pointed out that even in India, there is no direct right of appeal in Article 184(3) cases.
The AGP argued that the Constitution does not limit the jurisdiction of revision. Justice Bandial agreed the legislature has the power to expand the review jurisdiction but emphasized the need for careful consideration of facts before drafting legislation.
The attorney general informed the court that he had previously mentioned the expansion of the court’s jurisdiction during the hearing.
During the proceedings, the AGP requested the court to dismiss the petitions against the law. When asked about the procedure for challenging a law, the AGP suggested that the petitioners could have challenged the legislation in the high court under Article 199.
He concluded his arguments by saying the current legislation would not hinder the delivery of justice or review decisions.
Justice Bandial commented that in order to review the decision of the main case, specific errors need to be identified.
He remarked on the importance of clear legislation without ambiguity and expressed his reservations regarding granting the right of appeal in review cases.
Zafar, in his arguments, contended that changing the powers of the apex court could not be achieved solely through legislation.
He emphasized that a constitutional amendment is necessary to modify the Supreme Court’s powers, considering numerous apex court decisions related to judicial authority.
Zafar pointed out that Article 187 grants the Supreme Court broad authority to ensure complete justice.
The lawyer argued that a case cannot be reexamined merely by constituting a larger bench based on the Constitution.
Later, Justice Bandial instructed all lawyers to submit their arguments, along with relevant references, in writing.
