ISLAMABAD   -   The Supreme Court of Pa­kistan Monday reserved the judgment on peti­tions against newly pro­mulgated law - Supreme Court (Review of Judg­ment and Order) Act, 2023, which expands the scope of review of those cases decided under Ar­ticle 184(3) of the Con­stitution.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Jus­tice of Pakistan Jus­tice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Jus­tice Munib Akhtar after hearing the arguments of Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan and the petitioners’ counsels re­served the verdict. “We will announce the ver­dict after discussing it among ourselves,” said the Chief Justice.At the outset, the Attorney General argued that Article 188 of the Constitution, which states that the apex court has the power to review any judgment pronounced or any order made by it, did not limit the scope of a review. He said; “Extending the scope of review in cases pertaining to Article 184(3) is not discrim­inatory because the appeals were filed before the apex court against the judgment/order of the high courts or tri­bunals, while the cases under Article 184(3) are heard un­der original jurisdiction.”

However, the CJP said that the Court had not opposed expanding the scope of the re­view. “The question is on the manner in which the scope of review was expanding,” he said. He further said that the Indian Supreme Court did not give the right of appeal in such cases. “We don’t under­stand the reason for expand­ing the scope of review.” The AG said that the court had the power of review under Ar­ticle 188 of the Constitution and there was “no limit” as per the law. “But cases and appeals under Article 184(3) cannot be treated in the same way,” he argued. Justice Ban­dial remarked that lawmak­ers had the power to legis­late, but asked how review and appeal can be viewed as the same. “The court has to keep facts in consideration,” said the judge. He asked, “If the power of review is ex­tended, will it not be discrimi­natory?” Mansoor responded that there were several deci­sions of the Supreme Court regarding the legislative power of Parliament. “A sep­arate jurisdiction has been kept for review in cases per­taining to Article 184(3).” He contended that the impres­sion that some people were being exploited by granting the right of review was in­correct. He also said that the facts of the case would not be altered by expanding the scope of review. “In reviews the aggrieved party must be allowed to raise every legal point. Even those legal points that were not raised earli­er can’t change the facts of a case,” the AGP stated, adding that even the Indian SC had accepted raising new points in the review. Justice Munib asked if the AGP wanted the court to omit the word “ap­peal” from the law. “I have not reached that point yet,” the attorney general replied, con­ceding that the wording of the review of judgments law was not the best and there were some “issues” with its language.