Appeals in review matters ‘need tweak’

Bench agrees jurisdiction of Article 184(3) has expanded over time

ISLAMABAD:

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked on Thursday that there was nothing wrong with expanding Supreme Court’s jurisdiction but stressed that the right to appeal in the review matters could only be granted though a constitutional amendment.

Heading a three-member bench on a plea against the Supreme Court Review of Judgments and Orders Act, the chief justice said that the court believed that its scope should be widened but the reasons behind it should also be included in the law.

Otherwise, the law would disturb the affairs of the court, the chief justice said. Even if the rules for the review were to be changed, the chief justice continued, there should have been a constitutional amendment.

At the outset of the hearing, the chief justice had pleasant exchange with Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Usman Mansoor Awan amid loud chirping of birds echoing in the court room.

In a lighter vein, the chief justice addressed the AGP, saying that sparrows had brought a message for him. The AGP promptly replied that he hoped the message was pleasant. The chief justice then said that back in the days, messages were brought by the pigeons.

Sitting on the bench, Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked about distinguishing the review against judgments under Articles 184(3) of the Constitution from the judgments in other cases, saying that for him the standard of the review against all decisions was the same.

The chief justice further remarked that if the government wanted to broaden the appellate jurisdiction against decisions in suo motu cases, it was most welcome but the right of appeal could be given through a constitutional amendment.

In remarks, the chief justice termed the Supreme Court Review of Judgments and Orders Act a hasty legislation of the government and stressed that the court did not agree with the method adopted by the government.

The attorney general in his arguments stated that the scope of the Article 184(3) had broadened with the passage of time. Therefore, he added, it was necessary that there should be the right of appeal against the decision given under this article.

However, Justice Akhtar told the AGP that the matter before the court in the review would not be a dispute between two parties. In the review, the judge said, the matter under consideration before the court would be its own previous decision.

The attorney general, while referring to Justice Akhtar's decision on the Punjab elections case, said that in the last several decades, the Supreme Court had expanded the jurisdiction of Article 184(3).

Justice Akhtar said that merely giving the right to appeal against the decision under Article 184(3) was a discriminatory attitude. Chief Justice Bandial added that the objection was being raised that the law was made in haste.

Earlier, AGP Awan began arguments, saying that he would focus on “five points” – including expansion of the jurisdiction of Article 184(3), legislative powers of the legislature and the revision of jurisdiction and admissibility.

Also sitting on the Bench, Justice Ijazul Ahsan maintained that he was interested in knowing why and how the review jurisdiction should extend with the scope of the Article 184(3).

The chief justice advised the AGP to “understand” the position of the petitioner, who “did not object” to the act itself, but wanted “the necessary amendments”.  The AGP maintained that he had noted the points down and would support them as well.

Justice Akhtar emphasised that “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, he added, what would be the future of the current law,” he questioned.

The court adjourned the hearing till Friday (today) and the AGP’s would likely continue his arguments.