ISLAMABAD: The apex court reserved the judgment on pleas against newly-promulgated law, the Supreme Court (Review of Judgment and Order) Act, 2023, which expands the scope of review of those cases decided under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, on Monday, after hearing the arguments of Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan and the petitioners’ counsels, reserved the verdict.
“We will announce the verdict after discussing it among ourselves,” said the chief justice.
At the outset, the attorney general argued that Article 188 of the Constitution, which states that the SC has the power to review any judgment pronounced or any order made by it, did not limit the scope of a review. He said: “Extending the scope of review in cases pertaining to Article 184(3) is not discriminatory because the appeals were filed before the apex court against the judgment/ order of the high courts or tribunals, while the cases under Article 184(3) are heard under original jurisdiction.”
NA passes ‘SC (Review of Judgements and Orders) Bill’
However, the CJP said that the Court had not opposed expanding the scope of the review. “The question is on the manner in which the scope of the review was expanding,” he said. He said that the Indian Supreme Court did not give the right of appeal in such cases. “We don’t understand the reason for expanding the scope of review.”
The attorney general said the Court had the power of review under Article 188 of the Constitution and there was “no limit” as per the law. “But cases and appeals under Article 184(3) cannot be treated in the same way,” he argued.
The chief justice remarked that lawmakers had the power to legislate, but asked how review and appeal can be viewed as the same. “The court has to keep facts in consideration,” Justice Bandial said. “If the power of review is extended, will it not be discriminatory?”
Mansoor responded that there were several decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the legislative power of Parliament. “A separate jurisdiction has been kept for review in cases pertaining to Article 184(3).” He contended that the impression that some people were being exploited by granting the right of review was incorrect. He also said that the facts of the case would not be altered by expanding the scope of the review.
“In reviews, the aggrieved party must be allowed to raise every legal point. Even those legal points that were not raised earlier can’t change the facts of a case,” the AGP stated, adding that even the Indian SC had accepted raising new points in the review.
Justice Munib asked if the AGP wanted the court to omit the word “appeal” from the law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023