Review plea: Petition seeks dismissal of Bhutto reference

Supreme Court's jurisdiction to comment on issue questioned.


Express April 29, 2011

LAHORE:


An application has been filed in the Supreme Court Lahore registry seeking dismissal of presidential reference for reopening of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case.


Petitioner Allah Baksh Gondal filed the application with the SC in pending presidential reference, through his counsel AK Dogar.

The petitioner submitted that the reference filed by the President under Article 186 of the Constitution was not maintainable and the SC has no jurisdiction to deliver an opinion on the issue.

He submitted that the judgment in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case was a judicial verdict handed down in exercise of the adjudicatory power of this court. He said any opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction cannot over-ride the judgment. He said any opinion given by the SC would not be binding.

He pointed out that five questions of law referred by president to apex court could have been taken up in review petition but Bhutto had filed a review petition which was dismissed on March 24, 1979. And a second review is not permitted under the law, the said.

He said President Asif Ali Zardari is also holder of office of head of Pakistan People Party. So, the reference is a reference by party chief and not by president of Pakistan.

He submitted that historically Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was a highly controversial figure and his sentence was welcomed by a large cross-section of society in Pakistan and even Babar Awan, the counsel for the president’s reference, distributed sweets among lawyers in Rawalpindi.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 29th, 2011.

COMMENTS (6)

K.H. Khattak | 12 years ago | Reply @Munir Saami: I think the issue is whether an already disposed of review can be re-opened. A review was already denied as of March 24, 1979. A second review is not permitted as of law. Apart from this, as a student of political science, on would argue that any case law can be overturned by an act of the legislature. Why not pass an Act of Parliament instead? An act of Parliament has in the past, as it should in this case, pre-empt any common law decision. The motives behind making the Supreme Judaical Council to review a decision, not maintained by law seems to be a calculated political ploy. The petition cannot be maintained as of law. If the SC denies dismisses the petition, the Party in power can fall back and play the victim (as they always do). In my humble opinion, of course. They should gather some 'sand', and move to pass an Act of Parliament overturning the decision.
Shaikh Muhammad Saleem | 12 years ago | Reply @Fayyaz Haider: i agree with you
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ