In a judgment on Monday, the Supreme Court defined Article 212(3) of the Constitution while clarifying how its jurisdiction would be invoked when agitating the question of law and issues of ‘public importance.’
Article 212 of the Constitution provides for the establishment of administrative courts and tribunals. Its Clause 3 reads: “An appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of an Administrative Court or Tribunal shall lie only if the Supreme Court, being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal.”
Defining what a question of law is and how it relates to issues of ‘public importance’ the court ruled that a mere inter-party dispute which doesn’t entail questions of law, as defined by the court, will not attract the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the said article. The ruling added that matter must go substantially beyond the facts of the case to constitute ‘public importance.’
By implication, the judgment seems to have narrowed down the court’s own jurisdiction under Article 212(3) and has decidedly given finality to the orders of the service tribunal. But does it conform to the fundamental principles of justice where the scope to file an appeal against the orders of the tribunal looks to have been curtailed?
Where lays the remedy to redress this shortcoming? The government must introduce a change to the regulating law granting appellate jurisdiction to the federal and provincial service tribunals similar to the intra-court appeals and review mechanism available to high courts and the apex court.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 1st, 2019.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ