ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Supreme Court (Revision of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 was unconstitutional, dashing the hopes of former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen who were trying to challenge the lifelong disqualification. .
Both Nawaz and Tareen were disqualified under Article 62 of the Constitution. If the verdict were to go in favor of these petitions today, the two leaders would have an opportunity to challenge their disqualification in view of their political ambitions amid the upcoming general elections in the country after the completion of the term of the National Assembly.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, delivered the reserved judgment on June 19 after six hearings from June 7 to June 19 on several petitions challenging the law. . Implemented at the end of May.
Ghulam Mohiuddin of Jurist Foundation, Zaman Khan Wardak through its CEO Riyaz Hanif Rahi and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenged the act.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan – during the hearing of the case – had asked the court to dismiss the petitions against the law, stating that it broadened the jurisdiction of the court and does not limit the options of
However, PTI lawyer Ali Zafar, on behalf of the party’s secretary general Umar Ayub, said that a change in the powers of the Supreme Court cannot be done through legislation alone and requires a constitutional amendment.
The review law
The Act, passed during the coalition government, aims to facilitate and strengthen the Supreme Court in exercising its powers to review its judgments and orders.
The statement of objects and reasons of the law states that it is necessary to ensure fundamental rights of justice through meaningful review of judgments and orders passed by the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184.
In the case of judgments and orders of the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction (su moto powers) under Article 184 of the Constitution, the law states that the scope of review both on facts and in law shall be the same as an appeal. Under Article 185 of the Constitution
Article 184(3) determines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and enables it to assume jurisdiction over matters involving a question of “public importance” with respect to the “enforcement of any of the fundamental rights” of citizens.
Earlier, a bench which had issued the original order heard the revision petition, but under the revision law, this cannot be done now.
“The revision petition shall be heard by a bench larger than the bench which delivered the original judgment. The revision petitioner shall have the right to appoint an advocate of the Supreme Court of his choice for the revision petition,” the law said. has gone
It further provides that the right to file a revision petition shall also be available to any aggrieved person against whom an order under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution has been passed before the commencement of this Act, provided that the revision The application “shall be filed within sixty days of the commencement of this Act.”
“A revision petition may be filed within sixty days of the passing of the original order,” it added.
