ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Monday reserved the verdict on petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act-2023 after both the sides completed arguments.
A three-member bench of the top court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar heard the case for weeks. Zaman Khan Vardak, Ghulam Mohiuddin and the Jurists Foundation, through its CEO Riaz Hanif Rahi, had challenged the Act.
Monday’s hearing
At the outset of the hearing, the AGP while resuming his arguments contended that Article 188 of the Constitution — which states that the SC has the power to review any judgment pronounced or any order made by it — did not limit the scope of a review.
“Extending the scope of review in cases pertaining to Article 184(3) is not discriminatory,” he maintained, highlighting appeals were filed in the Supreme Court against decisions taken by high courts or tribunals. “But a case linked to Article 184(3) comes directly to the apex court,” Awan added.
It is to mention here that Article 184(3) of the Pakistan Constitution grants the top court powers to issue an order if it considers a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights involved.
Upon this, the Chief Justice clarified that the apex court had not opposed extending the scope of the review. “The question is on the manner in which the scope of review was extended,” he added.
He also pointed out that the Indian supreme court did not give the right of appeal in such cases. “We don’t understand the reason for extending the scope of review.”
The AGP then said that the apex court had the power of review under Article 188 of the Constitution and there was “no limit” as per the law. “But cases and appeals under Article 184(3) cannot be treated in the same way,” he argued.
At that, Justice Bandial remarked that lawmakers had the power to legislate but at the same time asked how review and appeal can be viewed as the same.
“The court has to keep facts in consideration,” Justice Bandial said. “If the power of review is extended, will it not be discriminatory?”
AGP Awan responded by saying that there were several decisions of the SC regarding the legislative power of the Parliament. “A separate jurisdiction has been kept for review in cases pertaining to Article 184(3).”
He further said that the impression that some people were being exploited by the right of review was incorrect. He said the facts of the case would not be altered by extending the scope of review.
At one point during the hearing, Justice Akhtar asked if the AGP wanted the court to omit the word ‘appeal’ from the law.
“I have not reached to that point yet,” the attorney general replied, admitting that the wording of the very law was not perfect and there were some “issues” with its language.
Continuing his arguments, the AGP said if the scope of Article 184(3) had been extended, the scope of review should have been increased as well.
“So, if a judgment has been delivered by a three-member bench, can a four-member panel hear the review petition,” Justice Akhtar asked. To that, the AGP said: “Larger means larger, no matter how many judges.”
Subsequently, the CJP said that the court was discussing constitutional jurisdiction. He added that in an appeal “you have to show an error in the first judgment”.
He further said, “You [AGP] are talking about hearing the case again … there must be some grounds for it”. “We are accepting your argument that there should be a remedy against Article 184(3). But the remedy should be given as per the constitutional requirements.” It is necessary to clarify the grounds for the remedy, Justice Bandial further observed.
The AGP assured the court that the review judgments law would not hurt the judiciary’s freedom. “If someone has an objection to the law, he could have approached the high court,” he said further.
At that, Justice Akhtar highlighted that the law under discussion was directly related to the powers of the SC. “Is the top court not the right forum to challenge the law in?”
Wrapping up his arguments, Awan requested the court to dismiss pleas against the review judgments law.
