Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial on Friday heard a set of appeals challenging the Supreme Court (Revision of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 and the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) review against the May 14 verdict. Willingness to address concerns about the article. 184(3).
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar heard the case.
In the previous hearing, the apex court had merged the petitions against the recently enacted Supreme Court (Revision of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) petition asking the Supreme Court to Revise its April 4 order to hold elections. On May 14 in the Punjab Assembly
Today’s hearing
At the beginning of the hearing, Attorney General Usman Awan presented the arguments and also asked for time to complete the arguments in the next hearing.
During his arguments, the AGP emphasized that the High Court’s decisions can be appealed in various forums including intra-court and ultimately in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Mansoor highlighted that cases heard under Article 184/3 of the Constitution represent the first judicial forum, and any appeal against such decisions will be heard by a 5-judge bench.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the said 5-member bench would include the three judges who had delivered the verdict earlier.
Chief Justice Bandial expressed his intention to intervene, but Justice Ijazul Hasan urged Awan to continue with his arguments. Attorney General Awan further said that the court is not bound by Order 26, Article 188 does not impose restrictions on the scope of revision.
Referring to a curative review case by the Supreme Court of India in 2002, Awan pointed out that the Indian court had allowed a second review to ensure fairness.
However, the Chief Justice intervened to clarify that the Indian court had allowed such a review under limited jurisdiction.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar pointed out that the Indian case cited by the Attorney General maintained the distinction between revision and appeal.
Awan responded by saying that the Supreme Court of Pakistan could extend its powers under Article 188, allowing direct appeals against decisions of election tribunals and competition tribunals.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar expressed his observation that the arguments of the Attorney General seem contradictory, stressing that revision and appeal are separate concepts.
He said that appeals against judgments are specifically mentioned in all the relevant laws, while revision retains its jurisdictional significance.
The top judge highlighted the need to pursue complete justice, drawing parallels with Indian law where cases were reheard during the appeal process. He reiterated the Court’s determination not to act against Article 184/3 and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue with caution.
However, he raised the question on what basis the revision process should be carried out.
In response, the Attorney General suggested that the larger bench constituted for the review should include the judge who had delivered the earlier judgment.
Chief Justice Bandial then inquired about the estimated time to complete the arguments, to which the Attorney General said that he would need 45 minutes in the next hearing to finish his submissions on the scope of the review.
As a result, Chief Justice Bandial adjourned further hearing till Monday, as the court tried to make progress on the main question.
