Supreme Court reserves verdict on ECP appeal and pleas against review of SC judgments act

 

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgement on Election Commissions of Pakistan’s (ECP) review appeal regarding holding elections in Punjab and a number of pleas challenging the newly-enacted Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan on Monday heard the appeals challenging the review judgment law, which expands the scope of a review petition and the ECP’s appeal against the verdict fixing May 14 as the date for holding Punjab Assembly elections.

AGP Mansoor Usman Awan and PTI lawyer Ali Zafar concluded their arguments after which the apex court reserved its decision.

CJP Bandial said, “The court will announce the verdict soon after discussing it among ourselves. Let’s see what happens.”

Case hearing

The Attorney General said that today he would start the arguments with the legislative authority of the Parliament. He said that the impression that some people are being exploited by the right of review appeal is not true.

The Chief Justice asked the Attorney General to slowly explain to the court with arguments, if he is trying to say that the constitution has been exploiting people before the right of appeal? How to ignore the entire constitution for a constitutional issue, the top judge inquired.

The AGP said that before the Act 184/3 there was no way of review, no one was abused by government legislation.

The Chief Justice said that the government could legislate, but it does not seem right to give the right of appeal in the review. A decision should be made very thoughtfully to give the right of appeal in the cases under Article 184/3. There is no right of direct appeal in cases of Article 184/3 in India too, the CJP remarked.

Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan said that the Constitution does not limit the jurisdiction of review.

On this, Justice Munib Akhtar inquired if the power of review could be compared to civil laws.

The judge continued, “Civil laws are under provincial jurisdiction and the provincial laws are not mentioned in the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act 2023. If this law applies at the provincial level, will the high courts determine the procedure of the Supreme Court? Give arguments on Clause 2 of the Supreme Court Review Act, do you want us to review the legislation and give an opinion”?

The Attorney General said that the Constitution of Pakistan did not determine the hearing of the jurisdiction of review. The Supreme Court extended the hearing of Article 184, Clause 3, similarly the hearing of the review authority can also be extended. The Parliament did not seek the authority of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute a bench under the Review of Judgments and Orders Act. The AGP said that the "Talwar Revision Case" was heard by a five-member larger bench.

Justice Munib Akhtar inquired if the larger bench could also consist of four judges. On this, the AGP said that yes of course a larger bench means a larger bench. He said that the American Court of Appeal has a rule of rehearing the case in certain circumstances.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that it is very interesting, but there should be some reasons for the permission to conduct court proceedings in the second stage - reasons such as not reviewing the records or wrongly reviewing the records should be included in the Review of Judgments and Orders Act.

He said, “We admit that it should be like this. Go and legislate, don't enlarge the scope of jurisdiction by opening a new door. Public interest grounds should have been part of the legislation.”

The SC is not opposed to expanding the scope of the review. The question is on the manner in which the scope of review is expanding, the top judge remarked.

The Chief Justice said that while everyone agreed that the Legislature could extend the jurisdiction of review, the government had converted the review into an appeal which required strong reasons to be shown. One needs to look at the facts very carefully before enacting the law, he added.

Attorney General Awan told the court that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had called him to consult about some important legislation. He asked the court’s permission to leave.

The court allowed him to leave.

Advocate Ali Zafar's arguments were adopted by other petitioners in the case against the Review of Judgments and Orders Act.

Later, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the case.

 

Reporter Amanat Gishkori