ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday reserved judgment on the petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 after the parties concluded their arguments.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, heard the petitions filed against the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023.
The act was challenged by Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Wardak and the Jurist Foundation through its CEO Riyaz Hanif Rahi.
During today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Ali Zafar completed their arguments, after which the Supreme Court reserved the verdict.
Chief Justice Bandial said that we will announce the decision after discussing it.
Earlier, starting his arguments, AGP Mansoor defended the right to appeal cases under Article 184-3 and said that there is separate jurisdiction to review such cases.
On this, Chief Justice Bandial remarked that the government can legislate but it does not seem right to give the right of appeal in revision.
“The right of appeal in Article 184/3 cases has to be decided very thoughtfully. Even in India there is no right of direct appeal in Article 184/3 cases.
“The AGP maintained that the Constitution does not limit the scope of revision.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Bandial agreed that the legislature could widen the scope of review.
“Government has diverted the revision appeal for which solid reasons must be given. Before legislating, the facts should be looked at carefully.
“The Attorney General said that he informed the court at the last hearing that the jurisdiction of the court has now been extended.
During the hearing, the AGP requested the court to dismiss the petitions against the Supreme Court Review Act.When asked about the requirements for challenging a law, the AGP said the petitioners could have challenged the law in the High Court under Article 199.
“The existing legislation will not affect the delivery of justice, review of decisions,” he said, concluding his arguments.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Bandial observed that it is necessary to point out certain flaws in order to review the judgment in the important case.
“Legislation must be made but leave no ambiguity,” he said, remarking that giving right of appeal in revision does not seem right.
Starting his arguments, PTI’s lawyer Ali Zafar said that the powers of the Supreme Court cannot be changed only through legislation.
He said that a constitutional amendment is necessary to change the powers of the Supreme Court, adding that there were many judgments of the Supreme Court related to judicial powers.He said that Article 187 gives broad powers to the Supreme Court to provide complete justice.
The counsel took the stand that the case cannot be re-heard in the matter of constitution of a larger bench.
Later, the Chief Justice directed all the lawyers to submit their arguments in writing containing relevant references.
