ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be made into re-hearings by amending the constitution and not through law.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib, on Thursday, heard the petitions against the Supreme Court (Review of Judgment and Order) Act, 2023.

The chief justice noted that a review is not re-hearing. If the government wants to make it re-hearing then it needs to amend the constitution, with the correct instruments. He questioned whether a review could be converted into an appeal. The review and appeal are two distinct jurisdictions, he added.

The chief justice observed that according to the Act, the expansion of review is limited only to Article 184(3) of the Constitution, as there is no appeal against the judgment/order passed under this article.

Justice Munib Akhtar stated that he faced “difficulty” in understanding how a review against the judgments under Article 184(3) was distinguished from judgments passed in cases like rent, company, and other matters, while in review under Article 188 of the Constitution is subject matter is of the Supreme Court judgments.

Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan argued that over the period of time, the scope of Article 184(3) has been expanded, therefore, the federal government that review against the judgment/order passed under this article also need to be broadened. In some cases, under Article 184(3) the apex court has examined the question of facts.

He then argued on the evolution of the review in the courts. He told that in the Alim Din case in 1960 the Court was looking at the review jurisdiction to alter its decision. In 1949 the Federal Court, which was the final court, used the term rehearing for review its judgment with limited scope.

He contended if we see the history of the USA Supreme Court we find that there have been swings in its approach. He said each generation has its own challenges. Justice Munib questioned: “Maybe two months, six years or 20 years from today if this court understands the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) in a different way than would the Act in that scenario survive.”

The case was adjourned until today (Friday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023