Supreme Court Inspection on decision

Yesterday, the Supreme Court (Review of Judgement and Orders) Act 2023 was declared to be “unconstitutional” by a three-member bench of the SC, which also included Justices Ijazul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar. The court was chaired by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial. This year, in May, the bill was passed. Multiple petitions against the law were considered by the SC bench, and on June 19 the bench reserved judgement. Many legal and political analysts have noted that, with the PDM administration no longer in power, the decision was eventually rendered at a time when there is no parliament and no way for new legislation to be passed. In cases resolved pursuant to Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the review law has expanded the scope of review authority, The SC has original jurisdiction over issues resolved under Article 184(3) of the constitution, but CJ Bandial viewed this as interfering with the judiciary. Azam Nazeer Tarar, a former law minister, responded to the ruling by calling it “unfortunate” that courts continue to “interfere” with parliament’s authority and issue rulings that limit its supremacy. He added that the law was passed in response to a request from bar councils because the scope of the review was relatively limited. Now that Nawaz Sharif has been permanently disqualified from holding office, the key question is how this decision would impact his potential comeback. Nawaz Sharif’s lifetime disqualification was overturned by an amendment to the Election Act, 2017 under which Section 232 had been amended to deem any disqualification under Article 62 of the constitution to not apply, according to Tarar, who disagrees with many legal experts who claim that the SC verdict will prevent PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif and the IPP’s Jahangir Khan Tareen from challenging their lifetime disqualifications. Legal professionals argue that this claim is false and that the new law does not change this. Despite the fact that the National Assembly has just been dissolved, the timing of the verdict is intriguing. However, some observers claim that given the animosity between the judiciary and the departing PDM government, particularly in the previous 16 months, this verdict was not anticipated. The review bill was not the only item of SC-related legislation that had generated controversy. The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) measure, 2023, which restricted the chief justice of Pakistan’s discretionary authority to issue suo-motu notice, was enacted by a joint session of parliament in April. An eight-member bench then took up petitions against the measure. Due to the fact that President Arif Alvi had not yet signed the law when it was first introduced, legal experts argued that this preemptive hearing was unprecedented. Just over a month remain before Justice Qazi Faez Isa assumes the role of chief justice. If a new administration tries to resurrect the law, this verdict may end up being on the next CJ’s list of things to consider. Judicial reforms, including review procedures, have long been demanded by legal professionals. Perhaps a more persuasive approach to bringing the opposing viewpoints together and developing a legal resolution that is acceptable to all parties can be developed.