Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday said review hearings of the apex court could be made into rehearings if the correct legal route was followed.
The CJP's remarks came as a three-member bench of the top court resumed hearing petitions against the recently introduced SC (Review of Judgments and Orders) Bill, 2023 on Thursday. The bench was led by Justice Bandial and comprised of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar.
During the hearing, the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Dr Mansoor Awan began arguments in favour of the law in “five points” regarding the evolution of the scope of the revision in Pakistan.
AGP Awan stated that he would assist the legislature in its legislative powers and would present arguments on the revision of jurisdiction and admissibility.
Awan continued that he would read the judgment and explain how the jurisdiction of Article 184(3)of the Constitution expanded over the years.
Justice Ahsan maintained that he was interested in knowing why and how the revisional jurisdiction should extend with Article 184(3).
The chief justice advised the AGP to “understand” the position of the petitioner who “did not object” to the bill, rather welcomed it but with “the necessary amendments”. Justice Bandial added that the top court itself believed the scope should be wide but reasons be provided for it, otherwise, the affairs of the court would be disturbed.
Justice Akhtar stated that he faced “difficulty” in understanding how revisions against judgments for cases of Article 184(3) were distinguished from other judgments as he viewed the standard of review against all decisions of the Supreme Court as one.
“You have brought a different measure with this law,” he added.
The judge questioned how the scope can be different when the subject matter is the same in the revision of all judgments.
Read Pakistan undergoing a period of transition: CJ
The AGP maintained that he noted the points down and would support them as well. He also referred to the Watan party case in his arguments.
Awan stated that he would discuss the Supreme Court Rules after the references to the judgments. He further said that as the scope of Article 184(3) has widened with time, it should have been revised.
Justice Akhtar questioned how the AGP could cut things apart and stated that its nature is different from others.
“In the end, any decision will be called the decision of the Supreme Court. In a revision, the matter before the court is not a dispute between two parties, rather the matter under consideration before the court is its own previous decision,” he said.
Justice Akhtar continued that the court understood the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) in different terms during different periods and that the US Supreme Court also examined it differently in different periods.
“Maybe two months, six years or 20 years from today, this court will understand the authority of Article 184(3) in a different way. In such a case, what will be the future of your act?” he questioned.
The CJP suggested that if the legislature wanted to make revisions like a re-hearing then it should, however, the right legal route should be taken.
The AGP replied that he would inform the court how the revision has evolved.
The court adjourned the hearing till Friday (tomorrow) and is set to hear the AGP’s arguments then.
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