Incidents where Pak, India, US apex courts reversed own decisions

LAHORE: Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision to strike down or nullify lifetime bans on the likes of Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen etc. did invoke some criticism on mainstream national media and social networking platforms Monday evening as political adversaries of the beneficiaries questioned how could judges change their mind and reverse an earlier verdict announced at the highest judicial forum!

Research conducted by the “Jang Group and Geo Television Network” shows that a couple of important precedents do exist in the action-packed history of Pakistan’s jurisprudence where the arbiters had reversed their verdicts.

In one such decision, Nawaz Sharif himself was the beneficiary. In its decision dated May 26, 2009, the Pakistani Supreme Court had ruled that Nawaz, the opposition leader at that time, could run in parliamentary elections and hold public office.

Earlier, a February 25, 2009 court decision had disqualified Nawaz Sharif from holding office, and had sparked massive protests during the month of March.

Second example from Pakistan:

In January 2016, the Pakistani Supreme Court had also reversed or overturned its own decision of August 2015 to ban the hunting of the “houbara bustard,” a rare desert bird whose meat is prized among Arab sheikhs as an aphrodisiac.

Wealthy hunting parties from the Gulf travel to Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan province every winter to kill the “houbara bustard” using hunting falcons. The issue has also cast a spotlight on traditionally close ties between Pakistan and its allies in the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia.

In its January 22, 2016 judgment, the Supreme Court had said it had set aside its original decision to ban hunting of the bird and that petitions on the issue would be listed for fresh hearings.

According to archives of Pakistani newspapers, a five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Mian Saqib Nisar announced the verdict on the review petitions filed by the federal and provincial governments against the ban.

In a 4-1 majority ruling, the court lifted the ban on hunting of the endangered bird however, Justice Qazi Faez Isa wrote a dissenting note opposing the bench’s order. The court held that there was “apparent error on the face of record” and set aside its August 19, 2015 judgment.

In its 16-page judgment, the top court said the “role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and not to legislate. Examination of the laws clearly shows that permanent ban on hunting of “houbara bustard” is not envisaged. Hunting of protected animals is prohibited whereas license is required to hunt game animals.”

The August 2015 ban had resulted from a petition that recalled that Pakistan had imposed a permanent restriction on the hunting of “houbara bustards” under the Third Schedule of the Pakistan Wildlife Ordinance 1971, after declaring the species a protected bird.

On December 27, 2023, the Indian Supreme Court overruled its own controversial decision and held that the allegedly unstamped or inadequately stamped arbitration agreements are not void ab initio or unenforceable.

The Supreme Court’s decision meant that defects regarding stamping could no longer be used by parties as a tool to delay the constitution of arbitral tribunals or otherwise hinder arbitration by initiating prolonged litigation in the courts.

In December 2023, according to “Indian Express,” the Indian apex court also reversed one of its earlier orders pertaining to automatic expiry of stay orders.

The American Supreme Court had also overturned some of its own decisions.

For example, in the Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990) Case, the state of Michigan’s campaign finance laws initially prevented corporations from contributing to political campaigns or purchasing political advertising out of the company’s general fund. The state’s Chamber of Commerce felt the law - the Michigan Campaign Finance Act -- was an unconstitutional violation of their free speech and sued.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declared that the business corporations funded politicians favourable to their interests and, therefore, didn’t violate the Constitution.

In 2010, the US Supreme Court heard the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and overturned its decision in the 1990 Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce Case.

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision had essentially drawn two conclusions: Money equals speech, and corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals. Therefore, it ruled, corporate political spending could not be termed illegal.