Chief Justice Raises Concerns Over Enactment of Law Expanding Review Petitions

Chief Justice Criticizes Enactment Process of Law Expanding Review Petitions

In a significant development that has sparked debates within the legal community, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial of the Supreme Court of Pakistan voiced his concerns on Thursday regarding the enactment process of a new law that expands the scope of review petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. While Chief Justice Bandial clarified that the Supreme Court does not inherently oppose the law itself, he emphasized that the problem lies in the manner in which it was enacted.

Leading a three-member bench that was hearing a series of appeals challenging the recently passed Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023, as well as the Election Commission of Pakistan's review of the verdict setting May 14 as the date for the Punjab Assembly elections, Chief Justice Bandial questioned the procedure followed in introducing the legislation. He contended that constitutional amendments should have been pursued instead of enacting the changes through an ordinary law.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Bandial acknowledged the government's authority to enact laws that provide effective remedies in response to Supreme Court decisions. However, he argued that the method and manner in which the law was enacted raised constitutional concerns. By opting for an ordinary law instead of pursuing a constitutional amendment, the legislature may have overlooked the appropriate and more rigorous procedure required for such substantial changes.

Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, while defending the law, outlined the historical evolution of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction over time. AGP Awan emphasized the need to adapt the legal framework to address contemporary challenges and ensure justice for all.

Justice Munib Akhtar, another member of the bench, voiced his observations on the law, pointing out that by introducing this legislation, the government has effectively created a distinct category for decisions made under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. This expansion of the review jurisdiction grants special status to cases originating from the apex court, potentially altering the balance of power and the hierarchy of legal authority.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan further underscored the importance of understanding the reasoning behind the expansion of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction. He expressed curiosity about the scope of review if a case were to be presented before the court under Article 184(1) of the Constitution, urging a comprehensive exploration of the implications and potential consequences of the law.

In summary, Chief Justice Bandial's criticism of the enactment process of the law expanding the scope of review petitions under Article 184(3) highlights the concerns surrounding the constitutional procedure followed. While the Supreme Court does not inherently oppose the law, Chief Justice Bandial's remarks underscore the need for adherence to the appropriate constitutional mechanisms for implementing significant changes. The ongoing deliberations in the court will play a crucial role in determining the validity and implications of the expanded review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.