NA moves to further regulate suo motu litigation

House passes bill to allows review of SC’s judgments, orders

ISLAMABAD:

The National Assembly on Friday passed a bill giving it the right to review judgments and orders passed by the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184 of the Constitution.

Right after an in-camera briefing on the security situation of the country to the lawmakers and just minutes before Iftar, the house passed ‘The Supreme Court (Review of Judgments of Orders) Bill, 2023’.

The bill, moved by MNA Shaza Fatima Khawaja, aims at facilitating and strengthening the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers to review judgments and orders by enlarging the review jurisdiction.

Apart from enlarging the apex court’s jurisdiction, it would enable the constitution of a larger bench than the original one for a review petition and grant right to appoint a counsel of one’s choice among other things.

Importantly, the new bill will have a retrospective effect and judgments or any orders passed before the enactment of the bill can be reviewed, according to the mover of the legislation.

Shaza told The Express Tribune that the bill, after becoming the law, would enable the review of judgments passed in suo motu cases or other cases decided under the apex court’s original jurisdiction, including the recent case about the Punjab polls.

In the recent weeks, the Punjab polls case has brought the government and the judiciary face-to-face and hardly a day goes by when both sides do not engage in countering each other through judgments, parliamentary resolutions and legislation.

The bill states that in case of the Supreme Court judgments and orders in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184, “the scope of review on both facts and law, shall be the same as an appeal under Article 185”.

The Article 185 (1) says that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from judgments, decrees, final orders or sentences of a high court.

Another clause of the bill states that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, final order or sentence.

Further, the bill stipulates that a review petition will be heard by a bench larger than the bench which passed the original judgment or order. It adds that the review petitioner will have the right to appoint advocate of his choice for the review petition.

The latest bill is also similar to the recently passed ‘Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023’, which says that for a review application under Article 188, the party will have the right to appoint counsel of its choice.

Another section of the bill says: “The right to file a review petition shall also be available to an aggrieved person against whom an order has been made under Clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution, prior to the commencement of this Act, provided that the review petition under this section shall be filed within 60 days of the commencement of the act.”

Yet another section of the bill says that a review petition may be filed within 60 days of the passing of the original order.

The last section of the bill states that the provisions of the act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules or regulations for the time being in force or judgment of any court, including the Supreme Court and the high court.

Speaking on the bill, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said that legislation was the prerogative of parliament, which had never interfered in the affairs of other institutions.

He added that the bill would facilitate the litigants.

Power Minister Khurram Dastagir said that the bill did not infringe upon the independence of judiciary. “Through this legislation, we want to ensure that there is greater transparency in the procedures of the apex court,” he added.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said that parliament was the mother of democracy, warning that it would not tolerate anyone’s interference in its limits.

“We want to strengthen the hands of the judiciary so that the people get speedy justice.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday that prevented the ‘Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023’ from taking effect, he said that the apex court was opposed to the legislation “to maintain its power”.

He added: “There is more politics going on in the Supreme Court than we do.”
Mohsin Leghari of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) opposed the hasty passage of the bill, saying that it should be referred to the relevant house committee for consideration. Parliament should not interfere in the work of the Supreme Court, he said.