Irfan Siddiqui seeks Senate debate on SC ruling nixing review law

ISLAMABAD: Senator Irfan Siddiqui Saturday submitted an adjournment motion in Upper House of Parliament for debate over the Supreme Court order that struck down the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023. On Friday, a day after the 15th National Assembly was dissolved, the top court had announced its decision, which remained reserved for 53 days.

The motion, submitted by Irfan Siddiqui of PMLN, said the development did not reflect ‘good intention’ on the part of the apex court, as it had curtailed the powers of parliament. “The Senate should immediately discuss the matter and take legal action against the insult,” Senator Siddiqui said.

“There can be no bigger insult to the parliament and democracy that three judges not only strike down a law that does not conform to their rules but also bar parliament from legislation on the subject,” the senator said. The motion stated that the court order gave the impression that the Supreme Court rules are superior to parliament’s power to legislate. The senator shed light on the fact that the apex court decisions under Article 184(3) had no remedy though there was right to appeal against decisions of lower courts. “This is against basic human rights and contrary to the spirit of justice,” he said.

The seven-point motion elaborates that the key legislation was passed by 442 members of parliament and the objective was to ensure right to “fair trial” as enshrined under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

Responding to the argument that the framers of the Constitution did not give right to appeal under Article 184(3), the senator said that they would not have imagined the time when the scope of the said provision would have no limits. “If the framers of the Constitution had any idea that this indiscriminate and unfair use of discretion could one day ban a citizen from politics, they would probably have scrapped the provision or given the right to appeal,” Senator Siddiqui said.

He said in the adjournment motion that depriving a person of the right to appeal is akin to murder of justice.