ISLAMABAD   -   Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial has said that the country is in a critical situation where we all need to learn to deal with it patiently.

“The country is passing through a transitory phase, therefore, everyone needs to show patience, fortitude and courage to come out of this situation,” remarked the CJP during hearing of petitions against the recently intro­duced SC (Review of Judgments and Orders) Bill, 2023 here yesterday.

The three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Munib conducted hear­ing of the petitions.

Justice Bandial passed these remarks, when Riaz Hanif Rahi, one of the pe­titioners, while arguing stated that during the hearing of this case he was pressurised to withdraw the petition and leave Islamabad.

Rahi wanted to read his petition, but the Chief Justice told him that this is his personal issue, and asked him to come to his chambers. “Sir, this is your per­sonal matter,” remarked CJP Bandial, “I will accept the application. “Do not read it now, we can read it later our­selves,” the CJP said.

The Islamabad Capital Territory Police on June 10 had confirmed that a case was registered after Advocate Rahi had gone missing. The Islamabad High Court had directed IG Police to ensure the recovery of the lawyer and contact the police de­partment and relevant intelligence agen­cies for further assistance.

Earlier during the hearing, PTI counsel argued that Section 2 of Supreme Court (Review of Judgment and Order) Act, 2023 is unlawful and unconstitutional.

During the proceeding, Barrister Ali Zafar, representing Secretary PTI Omer Ayub, argued that section 2 of the Act is unlawful and unconstitutional. He con­tended that the preamble of the Act says that jurisdiction is enlarged, adding that they (government) are seeing this thing from wrong angle.

He said that the order/judgment under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is fi­nal. He further argued that anything goes against the finality and is curtailing the jurisdiction of review under Article 188. This jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

Justice Munib questioned if the judg­ment of Supreme Court is set aside in the review then it would be a new case, and whether it will be heard in appeal or review.

Ali Zafar argued that the Constitution does not allow that the curtailment of Supreme Court is done through a law. He said appeal is rehearing of the matter and based upon the finding of law and facts, while in the review the litigant has to show error floating of the surface of the judgment.

The Chief Justice questioned that were the legislators not cognizant of the dis­tinction between the appeal and the re­view. Justice Ijaz remarked that the re­view jurisdiction was enlarged in the Act and treated it as an appeal. He said that suppose Parliament makes a law that in­stead of one appeal there will be two ap­peals, then would it be allowed? In fact it is not enlargement but curtailment of the Supreme Court jurisdiction. 

Ali Zafar referring Section 5 said that it is also unconstitutional. 

Justice Munib said that whether this law would apply to the cases already have been decided or apply prospectively. The case is adjourned until today.