ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea to suspend the Supreme Court (Judgments and Orders) 2023 and appoint a larger bench to hear the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that the court cannot suspend one law after another, but said that if the case against the law is not strong, the rules and procedures will be decided to proceed.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, reheard the review petitions of the Election Commission of Pakistan as well as the petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s decision. Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) 2023.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its decision of April 4, which fixed May 14 as the date for holding elections in Punjab. Similarly, Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Wardak and Jurist Foundation had challenged the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) 2023 through their CEO.
At the last hearing on June 7, the court linked the recently enacted law, the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023, with a petition by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in which the Supreme Court A review was requested from By order of April 4, the date of holding elections in Punjab province was fixed as May 14.
On Tuesday, one of the petitioners, Riaz Hanif Rahi, heard his petition challenging the Supreme Court (Revision of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023. Similarly, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar said. PTI) informed the court that they have also filed a petition challenging the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023, seeking to become a party to the petitions.
On the judicial inquiry, the lawyer told the court that the petition was filed by Umar Ayub on behalf of PTI. After which the court accepted the plea of PTI’s lawyer. During the hearing, Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) lawyer Sujail Shehryar Swati said in the court that their review petition should be heard by a larger bench as per the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023. He said that the court is looking at the scope of the law and until the court gives its decision, their arguments cannot be heard in the revision of the ECP. The court agreed with ECP’s counsel.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Bandial highlighted some loopholes in the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023. He observed that a ‘Super Appeal’ has been created by this Act. The Chief Justice asked Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf lawyer Ali Zafar that don’t you think they should have made this law carefully instead of hastily. He said that Parliament could have given effect to Article 187 of the Constitution to do full justice to the revisional jurisdiction. He also referred to the example of India where the revisional jurisdiction was widened on two grounds. The Chief Justice noted that by this Act, the legislators made revisional jurisdiction equal to appeal. The Chief Justice said that if the case against the law is not strong, then the rules and procedures for proceeding will be decided.
The petitioner’s counsel, Zaman Wardak, pleaded with the court to suspend the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 and fix the matter before an 8-member larger bench hearing the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. Do it. However, the court rejected the plea of the petitioner’s lawyer. Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that the court cannot suspend one law after another. The Chief Justice remarked that earlier we stayed one law, the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, so we cannot suspend the other. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked the petitioner’s counsel to tell us under what principle we should declare the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 invalid?
The petitioner’s counsel said that it is violative of Article 10 of the Constitution, the revision act is a gross interference in the independence of the judiciary. He said that the object and purpose of the two laws are the same, adding that the provision of right of appeal through this legislation is against the Constitution. However, Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that both laws relate to separate jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, Barrister Ali Zafar argued in the court that review is mentioned under Article 188 of the Constitution, adding that the language used in the 1956 Constitution regarding review has been repeated in the 1973 Constitution. The concept of the final decision of the Supreme Court is enshrined in the Constitution, Ali Zafar said that the Supreme Court has the power to review its decisions.
He added that the review does not re-examine the evidence as it cannot have the same jurisdiction as the appeal. Ali Zafar said that revision and appeal are separate jurisdictions and the Constitution does not speak of appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court. Zafar said that a review is filed only when there is an error in the important decision of the Supreme Court, but here under the new law, the revision has been given the power of appeal. He reminded that judges like Justice Darab Patel and Justice Fakhruddin Ji Ibrahim had issued judgments in this regard.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked the lawyer what will happen if the full court rules are changed tomorrow? Ali Zafar replied that even the laws do not have priority over the constitution.
If such a legislation is enacted, the rules on second appeal may come tomorrow, PTI’s counsel pleaded that if the right of appeal is given to the appeals, the decisions of the Supreme Court will not become final and by doing so, the second Supreme The court will come. will be established in the Supreme Court.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing of the case till today (Wednesday).
