Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah confirmed on Monday that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) will file a petition in the Supreme Court to review the decision of disqualification of Nawaz Sharif from public office and party president. .
On July 28, 2017, the Supreme Court disqualified Nawaz Sharif from holding any public office for life for concealing unpaid salary from his son in the Panama Papers case.
A year later, the court ruled on petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017 that a person disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 cannot be the head of a political party.
Speaking in an interview, the interior minister said that the Muslim League (N) would request Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial not to be part of the bench hearing the review petition – as the top judge has Considered biased. “Against the ruling party.
Meanwhile, he said that Nawaz’s return is subject to his health and the elections. When asked, the minister reiterated that the general elections would be held in October.
The Supreme Court Review of Judgments and Orders Bill 2023 came into effect on Friday after the assent of President Arif Alvi. The law says that to review the default judgment, a larger bench – which issued the order – will hear the case.
“In case of judgments and orders of the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184 of the Constitution, the scope of review, both on facts and in law, shall be the same as an appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution,” the law reads.
However, Chief Law Minister Nazir Tarar says that former Prime Minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) defector Jahangir Khan cannot benefit from the new law to review the latest decisions.
Speaking on Monday, Tarar said that the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Bill, 2023 will not benefit Nawaz and Tareen as both have exercised their right to review against their convictions.
The law minister also said that the court’s decision is considered final under Article 184(3), which states that “there is no scope for revision or corrective revision in our law”.
He further said that under the new law, the common people will be given relief under Article 184(3).
Legal expert’s opinion
Senior analyst and legal expert Muneeb Farooq said that the option of filing a revision petition was already there but its scope was limited.
However, once the law has come into force, revision/appeal can be filed not only on question of fact but also on question of law.
Explaining the issue further, Farooq said that earlier the judges who used to give the original verdict used to hear the review but now the number of judges has been increased under the new law.
Henceforth, revision petitions in all cases in which the option was not availed can be filed within 60 days of the law coming into effect, he said, adding that for deciding the pending cases. A new bench will be constituted for this. Requests
However, he supported Tarr’s point of view, saying that a review petition has already been filed in Nawaz’s disqualification case.
Nawaz does not have standing to file a review as he has already exhausted the right and it was dismissed. Similarly, he said that Tareen is also not in a position to benefit from the new law.
However, there may be an exception as no revision was filed in the Supreme Court case of “Samiullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Noshirwani”, which held that electoral disqualification is for life.
In 2018, the Supreme Court imposed a lifetime ban, saying the Islamic principles of ‘tuba’ (repentance) and ‘maghfirat’ (forgiveness) would not apply “because higher standards are expected of those aspiring to become members of parliament.” “.
Farooq said that the subject matter of the case was that the court had determined under Article 62 (1) F that anyone under the said article would be disqualified for life.
He said that a review was not filed in this case and if it is filed and the larger bench overturns the original verdict, the situation may be different for Nawaz and Tareen.
It is interesting to note that in the Samiullah Baloch case, the judgment penned by Justice Bandyal held that a permanent ban on disqualification arising out of non-fulfilment of qualifications under Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution was imposed. which is still in effect. As long as a declaratory judgment supporting a finding of one of the criminal conduct under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution remains in force.
