CJP says that AGP’s recommendations should be considered while evaluating legal cases.
The three-judge panel’s concerns about the new statute allowing appeals of suo moto rulings have not been allayed.
Umar Ata Bandial, Chief Justice of Pakistan, stated on Friday in ISLAMABAD that the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP), who has courtroom experience, should be consulted when crafting laws governing the scope of reviews.
Concerned about the new Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023, the CJP questioned whether a review might be combined with an appeal.
The chief judge stated that “some grounds should be added for reviewing the judgments given under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution,” adding that “otherwise, that would mean rehearing the case.”
In any case, the CJP stated that the court would be pleased with a decision to give a remedy in decisions decided under the original jurisdiction provided for in Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
In May, the AGP revealed that a new law expanding the scope of review petitions had been enacted while a three-member bench led by CJP Bandial and consisting of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar was hearing the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) review petition against its April order regarding elections in Punjab.
The Supreme Court consequently agreed to consider the petitions challenging the review law alongside the review appeal from the polling authority.
A.G.P. Mansoor Awan supported the new law during today’s hearings, arguing that review jurisdiction is completely separate and would involve the original bench members in the review.
The AGP stated that the Supreme Court (SC) could be petitioned to review a high court’s decision because “when a high court decides a case, there are other appellate forums, including the intracourt appeal.”
“However, when the SC decides a case under Article 184 (3), then is it the first judicial forum,” he noted, emphasizing the importance of the ability to file a review plea.
“Under Section 3 of the new law, a larger bench will hear the case, which will include the original three judges who initially heard the case,” he emphasized.
The Chief Justice, however, commented that such measures were “against the basic principles,” before adding, “We can resolve this matter.” Article 184 (3)’s review law should have incorporated your feedback.
The crucial issue of how far the review power can be expanded is still to come. The Chief Justice voiced concern over proposed review measures, asking, “On what grounds should the review be requested?”
To this Justice Ijazul Ahsan replied, “Your case is that there is overlap between the new laws,” alluding to the SC (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which limited the top judge’s ability to commence suo motu proceedings and to create benches of his discretion.
Justice Munib Akhtar said, “There is a contradiction here,” in reference to the parallels between the two sets of regulations.
Defense attorney AGP Awan argued that “as we speak, there is only one law because the other law stands suspended.”
The trial was then postponed until next Monday, June 19.
