CJP says disagrees with procedure adopted by govt for enacting review law

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umer Ata Bandial Thursday disagreed with the procedure adopted by the coalition government for enacting in haste the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023.

A three-member SC bench, headed by CJ Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Munib Akhtar, heard the petitions challenging the vires of the SC (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023.

Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Vardak and the Jurists Foundation, through its Chief Executive Officer Riaz Hanif Rahi, had challenged the vires of the SC (Review of Judgments and Orders) 2023.

During the course of the hearing, the CJP observed that the government enacted the law in haste and they did not agree with the procedure adopted for it.

The CJP observed that if the government wanted to expand the jurisdiction of appeal against the decisions of the apex court given in suo moto case, it was most welcome, but the right to appeal should be given through a constitutional amendment.

“The government has carried out the legislation in haste, and we don’t agree to the procedure adopted in this regard,” the chief justice remarked.

Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, while commencing his arguments, outlined his formulations and submitted that he would argue on five major points, including the evolution of suo moto jurisdiction under Article 184(3), how the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) of the Constitution expanded over the years, the powers of legislation, and finally the maintainability of the instant petitions challenging the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023.

The Chief Justice, however, asked the attorney general to understand the stance taken by the petitioners as well.

The CJP said the petitioners had no objections over the enactment of the impugned law, but their main concerns related to the procedure adopted for it.

“The petitioners are of the view that instead of enacting it with simple legislation, it should have been made through constitutional amendment,” the CJP told the AG.

The CJP further said that the petitioners were also of the view that review could not be converted into an appeal. He observed that the court also believed that the scope of review should be widened but solid reasons had to be provided for it as well. “Otherwise, the affairs of the court would be disturbed if it was done in such a manner,” the CJP remarked. Justice Munib Akhtar observed that in his view the standard of review against the decisions of the Supreme Court was one. The judge, however, noted that the law enacted by the government had separate standards. “When the subject matter is the same in the revision of all judgments, then how the scope could be different,” Justice Munib questioned. Meanwhile, CJP Umer Ata Bandial told the AG if the government wanted to convert the review into an appeal, it could do so but it should adopt a legal way i.e. through a constitutional amendment. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until Friday (today) whereby the AG will argue before the court.