In a significant ruling announced on Friday, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared a newly introduced law about the review of court judgments and orders as ‘unconstitutional’. The decision was delivered by a three member apex court bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar. The verdict comes after the court reserved its decision on June 19, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal debate.
The law in question, known as the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Bill, 2023, aimed to broaden the scope of review jurisdiction in cases decided under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution. Introduced by the coalition government, the bill was passed by the National Assembly on April 14 and later approved by the Senate. President Arif Alvi signed the bill into rule. However, the law’s passage through parliament seemingly occurred without the knowledge of the Supreme Court until Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan presented the Senate Secretariat’s gazette notification during a hearing involving the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) review petition.
The court’s decision to hear the petitions filed against the review law in conjunction with the Punjab election revision case brought the issue into the spotlight. Chief Justice Bandial criticized certain aspects of the law, highlighting concerns about creating what he termed a “super appeal.”
The new law stipulated that a review petition must be heard by a bench more significant than the one that passed the original judgment. Additionally, it granted the petitioner the right to appoint any advocate of their choice for the review petition. This departed from the last practice where the bench issuing the original judgment handled the review petition.
The court’s ruling asserted that “the Parliament cannot legislate regarding any matter relating to jurisdiction and powers of the SC.” The judgment emphasized that the legislative authority is limited by other Articles of the Constitution and the framework that guarantees the judiciary’s independence. The ruling acknowledged the potential interpretation that parliament could legislate on the review jurisdiction, but upon deeper examination, the court found that the implications of the 2023 Act contradicted the Constitution’s design.
Article 184(3) of the Constitution strengthens the Supreme Court to address “questions of public importance concerning the enforcement of any…fundamental right.” The law aimed to provide a meaningful review of judgments passed by the Supreme Court under this article. However, the court’s verdict underscored the boundaries of legislative power, ensuring the separation of powers and maintaining the judiciary’s autonomy.
The ruling marks a significant event in Pakistan’s legal landscape and underscores the importance of the delicate complementary between the legislative and judicial branches of government. The court’s emphasis on upholding the Constitution’s principles and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary demonstrates its commitment to preserving the integrity of the legal system.
As legal matters continue to evolve in Pakistan, this verdict reinforces the judiciary’s critical role in ensuring the rule of law and constitutional governance. The Supreme Court’s determination to maintain the delicate equilibrium between the different branches of government reflects the ongoing efforts to create a just and equitable society.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling declaring the review law unconstitutional highlights the court’s commitment to upholding the Constitution’s framework and preserving the judiciary’s autonomy. This decision carries significant implications for the relationship between legislative and judicial powers, setting a precedent for maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding the fundamental principles of the Constitution.