SC short order in reserved seats case: Review pleas should be heard timely: CJP

ISLAMABAD: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa has emphasized that hearing on review petitions filed against SC short order in reserved seats of women and non-Muslims should be conducted timely.

It was revealed in the minutes of the 17th meeting of a Committee, constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedures) Act, 2023, held on July 18, the chief justice, who headed the meeting, stressed upon the need that review petition filed against the SC judgment on reserved seats be heard urgently. However, the committee by a 2-1 majority decided to fix the review petitions after the Court’s summer vacations.

The minutes said that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, suggested that the review petitions be fixed post-holidays, as 13 judges who originally heard the case are currently on summer break or abroad.

CJP Isa calls for early scheduling of review petition on reserved seats

President Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Mian Nawaz Sharif on July 15 filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review its order dated 12th July passed in Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) for allocation of reserved seats of women and non-Muslim to it, and prayed that operation of the short order be suspended.

The petitioner submitted that the findings of the majority of 8-5 of the 13-member bench of the Supreme Court are beyond the pleadings of the parties, therefore it is liable to be recalled. He maintained that neither Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) nor any of its MNA’s filed any petition or application to become a party to the proceedings. The PTI never claimed any entitlement to the reserved seats, he added.

Three former female parliamentarians elected on the reserve seats for women in the National Assembly on Saturday also filed review petitions under Article 188 of the constitution read with Order XXVI Rule-I of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 against short order dated 12.07.2024.

The Committee meeting’s minutes noted, Justice Faez maintained that judges should prioritize constitutional duties over personal convenience, stating that delaying the hearing would be unjust. He stated that judges had taken oath to abide by the constitution, and it would be unjust and unfair if the review petitions were not fixed urgently. He emphasized that the right to review is enshrined in the Constitution and should not be hindered by judges’ vacations. He cited the urgency stipulated in the Practice and Procedure Act, which requires review petitions to be scheduled within 15 days.

Section 7 of the SC Practice and Procedure Act says “An application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief, filed in a cause, appeal or matter, shall be fixed for hearing within 14 days from the date of its filing.”

Justice Muneeb pointed out that judicial rules allow for vacation periods, and once announced, they cannot be easily revoked. He added that the new judicial year starts in the second week of September, making it challenging to accommodate the review petitions immediately.

CJP Faez warned that delaying the review petitions would render the cases ineffective and violate constitutional principles. He maintained that awaiting a detailed decision while postponing the review hearings would strip individuals of their rights and undermine the law. He stated that the delay would lead to a miscarriage of justice, stressing the need for immediate action to uphold constitutional integrity.

The chief justice in its note on the committee meeting stated that if the urgent applications are not granted and the review petitions and the said applications are not fixed in Court before the expiry of the stipulated 15 days the same may become infructuous. He stated that Article 188 of the constitution specifically grants to the Supreme Court the power to reviews its judgments. Section 7 of the Act stipulates “that an application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief, filed in a cause, appeal or matter shall be fixed for hearing within fourteen days from the date of its filing.”

The right provided by the constitution to file a review petition and to have it urgently heard cannot be made redundant or negated. With great respect, two untenable reasons have been given by my distinguished colleagues for not listening the review petitions for hearing. One is that ‘the detailed reasons is still awaited,’ which is matter within the determination of the judges themselves. It is an established jurisprudential principle that no one’s rights can be adversely affected on account of an act of the Court, which in the instant case is the Court’s own delay. If such a scenario is accepted then it would be equally valid that detailed reasons are purposely delayed and or never provided and thus render the constitution, which provides for a review petition, and the law, which mandates urgent hearing, utterly meaningless.

The CJP stated that the other reason cited by my distinguished colleagues for not hearing the review petitions is the commencement of summer vacations and that a judge is abroad, and in this regard reference is made to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

However, we have to abide by the constitution and the law. Therefore, the review petitions and the said applications must be fixed as soon as possible. The judges’ oath requires abiding by the constitution and the law (not the Rules) and the same prevail over all other personal considerations.

He wrote that the constitution and the law cannot be disregarded. The review petitions and the accompanying applications must be fixed for hearing in the Court after one week before the judges who had earlier heard the said cases; one week gives sufficient time to enable Justice Ayesha A Malik (who is abroad) to join the proceedings.

The chief justice said that Civil Review Petition (CRP) No. 197/2022 filed in Constitution Petition No.2/2022 on June 2022 seeking review of the majority decision of the Supreme Court dated 17th May 2022. The petition was heard by five judges and was decided by majority of 3 to 2; Justice Munib Akhtar from the majority remain whereas the then Chief Justice (Umar Ata Bandial) and a judge have retired and another judge resigned (Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan).

The petition pertained to the interpretation of Article 63 and 63A of the constitution. In view of the constitutional and legal ramifications CRP No. 197/2022 should have been decided; 26 months have elapsed since the decision. Therefore the same reasons as mentioned in Agenda item 1 (reserved seats) and considering that both the said judges are available it should be fixed for hearing in the next 10 days before a bench to which Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Amin ud Din Khan be added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024