SC’s review verdict

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar ruled in a unanimous verdict yesterday that the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023 was “unconstitutional”. The law was enacted in May this year. The SC bench had heard multiple petitions challenging the law and on June 19, the bench had reserved its verdict. With the PDM government gone now, many legal and political observers have pointed out that the verdict was finally given when parliament cannot enact any new laws – since there is no parliament at the moment. The review law had widened the scope of review jurisdiction in cases decided under Article 184(3) of the constitution, which grants the SC original jurisdiction, and was seen by CJ Bandial as an interference in judicial matters. Former law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar has reacted to the verdict by calling it ‘unfortunate’ that courts keep ‘interfering’ in parliament’s jurisdiction and give verdicts that put a curb on its supremacy, adding that the law was made due to the demand of bar councils because the scope of review was quite narrow.

The big question now is how this verdict affects the possible return of PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif, with his lifetime disqualification still hanging around his party’s neck. While many legal experts are saying that the SC verdict will not allow PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif and the IPP’s Jahangir Khan Tareen to challenge their lifetime disqualifications, Tarar says that it will not affect the prospects of Nawaz Sharif's return to electoral politics as his lifetime disqualification was undone by an amendment to the Election Act, 2017 under which Section 232 had been amended to deem any disqualification under Article 62 of the constitution to not be more than five years. Legal experts dispute this assertion with the argument that, regardless of the amended legislation, there is little any party can do unless the court revises its ruling in the matter or parliament makes a constitutional amendment doing away with the article itself.

While the timing of the verdict is interesting in that the National Assembly has just been dissolved, some analysts say that this verdict was not unexpected given the acrimony between the outgoing PDM government and the judiciary, especially in the last 16 months. The review law was not the only piece of legislation related to the SC that had become contentious. Back in April, after a joint session of parliament passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which limited the chief justice of Pakistan’s discretionary powers to take suo-motu notice, an eight-member bench took up petitions challenging the bill. Legal experts said this was unprecedented as the bill had not been signed by President Arif Alvi back then, and thus a pre-emptive hearing of a bill was odd. With just over a month left before Justice Qazi Faez Isa takes charge as the new chief justice, this verdict could end up falling into the new CJ’s list of things to look at, especially if an attempt is made by a new government to pursue the law again. There has been a longstanding demand by legal practitioners for judicial reforms, including review proceedings. Perhaps, a more cogent way can be found to bring both sides of the debate closer and come up with a legal solution palatable to all sides.