Supreme Court welcomes cautious remedy in Article 184(3) cases: Chief Justice Bandial

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was told on Friday that the enactment of the review of judgments law, widening the scope of the review will enable the petitioners to fully convince the court.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Munib Akhtar heard the petitions, challenging the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023. Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Vardak and the Jurists Foundation through its CEO Riaz Hanif Rahi had challenged the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) 2023.

Continuing his arguments, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan submitted that due to the limited scope of review jurisdiction, most of the persons affected in the judgments under Article 184(3) were reluctant to file review petitions. “When a high court decides a case, there are other appellate forums, including the intracourt appeal,” the AGP argued, “even the SC could be approached against a high court’s decision”. “However, when the SC decides a case under Article 184 (3), then is it the first judicial forum,” he said stressing the need for the possibility to file a review plea.

In order to facilitate the petitioners, the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2013 has widened the scope of review so that the litigants may be able to fully convince the court in cases filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Referring to the enlargement of benches hearing the review matters under the review of judgments law, the learned Attorney General submitted that the enlargement of the bench under the law does not mean it would exclude the judges who originally heard the case. “If a three-member bench makes a decision, then two more judges will hear the case alongside them in the review,” he said.

During the hearing, the AG cited an example of the Indian Supreme Court judgment, delivered in 2002 pertaining to curative petitions. He submitted that in the instant judgment, the Indian Supreme Court had held that ensuring justice is no less important than the finality of a decision. The AG submitted that the verdict had also held that absolute justice is God’s desire. Justice Munib Akhtar however, observed that a review is still a review and was not granted the status of an appeal. The Chief Justice, however, observed that a complete test of justice lay before the apex court adding that the Indian law also stated the same. The Chief Justice further observed that in the appeal, a case is heard once again hence they ought to resolve this issue.

The Chief Justice reiterated that the court welcomes any remedy against the cases taken up under Article 184(3) of the constitution provided it is done with caution with the advice of the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) as he has experience in litigations. “But the pertinent question arises here on what basis a review should be allowed”, the Chief Justice questioned.

Attorney General recalled that the right of appeal was also given against the decisions of the Election Commission as well as the treason case. Justice Munib Akhtar however, observed that in all these cases, the right of appeal was there but here in this law under challenge, you also talk about converting the review into an appeal. The CJP wondered whether a review could be merged with an appeal as he expressed reservations about the newly introduced Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023. “Some grounds should be added for reviewing the judgments given under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution,” the chief justice said, “otherwise, that would mean rehearing the case.”

The chief justice observed that the government can enact any law which provides an effective remedy in case of the apex court’s decisions but the problem lies with the method and manner of enacting the law. He said changes should have been made through a constitutional amendment and not ordinary law.

During the hearing, Sajeel Shehryar Swati, counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan submitted before the court that he also wants to present his arguments. The Chief Justice however, asked the learned counsel for the ECP that at present the court was hearing the learned Attorney General on the petitions, challenging the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023 and not hearing the ECP review petition. “We have invited you to the proceedings as a guest”, the Chief Justice told the ECP counsel in a lighter tone. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until Monday.