The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned hearing of petitions against the Review of Supreme Court Judgments and Orders Act 2023 till Friday.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhter heard the case.
During the course of proceeding, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan said he would discuss five points, including evolution of the scope of public interest, the scope of review, powers of the Parliament for legislation, and jurisdiction of reviews and admissibility of petitions in the Indian Supreme Court.
He said the scope of Article 184/3 had been extended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The first case of Article 184/3 in the Supreme Court came from opposition leader Chaudhry Manzoor Elahi regarding his arrest, and all the judges of the respective bench adopted a careful approach in that case.
Justice Munib Akhtar observed that all the judges declared the said case a matter of public interest and asked the AGP to read paragraph 47 of the judgment of that bench.
The AGP said he was also relying on paragraph 47. After the Manzoor Elhi case, the jurisdiction of Article 184/3 gradually expanded and new rules were prepared in 1980.
Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan said they knew that the scope of Article 184/3 had been expanded with the passage of time. The AGP said the ‘review was also related to Article 184/3.
CJP Bandial remarked that the other side also agreed on the matter of extending the scope of review. There was a difference between an appeal and a review, he said, questioning whether a review could be converted into an appeal.
He said the other side disagreed over the method of legislation. It position was that there should be a constitutional amendment for the purpose.
The chief justice observed that the court also accepted the point of expansion in the scope of review, but a question arose whether the scheme of the Constitution could be amended by general legislation.
Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan asked the AGP as to why he did not want to expand the jurisdiction of review with Article 184(3).
The chief justice said the government should also understand the position of the petitioner as he had objection only on the procedure.
The CJP said the court also believed that the scope should be widened but its reasons should also be noted as otherwise it would disturb the court’s affair.
Justice Munib said he had difficulty in understanding that how reviews against judgments under Article 184(3) were distinguished from other decisions. The jurisdiction of Article 183/3 was considered different in various tenures, he said, adding for him, the standard of review against all the Supreme Court decisions was same.
The chief justice remarked that the government should opt for an appropriate legal procedure if it wanted to make reviews like those of re-hearings.
AGP Mansoor Usman said the court should also view the facts along with the legal questions under Article 184/3, and for that it was necessary to give the right of appeal against the judgment under the above article.
The AGP said he had noted the points and would assist the bench regarding it.
After this, the further hearing of the case was then adjourned till Friday.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
