In cases involving the recently passed review of decisions bill, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reserved judgement.
SC judgement bill: After Attorney General Mansoor Awan finished speaking on Monday, a three-judge panel comprised of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, and Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan reserved the decision. Ali Zafar, an attorney for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, has already finished presenting his case.
The country’s parliament clearly reserved the authority to enact legislation, but the court would need to consider certain factors, the chief justice said.
According to the attorney general, the court’s ability to review is unrestricted by Article 188. He asserted that the treatment of cases and reviews under Article 184(3) should not be the same.
The new review bill’s potential to distinguish between various situations was another concern raised by the chief justice.
The attorney general responded by stating that implying certain persons may be taken advantage of by the law was incorrect. His statement aimed to address any misconceptions on the matter.
Justice Bandial argued that the entire constitution should not be disregarded for a single constitutional point. He made this argument while requesting the attorney general to provide further elaboration on his points.
The CJP further stated that while it was agreed that the parliament may broaden the scope of review by unanimously enacting a bill, the question of whether there was sufficient justification for doing so was still up for debate.
“Legal Perspectives and Decision Reserved: AG’s Assertion on Right of Review and the Real Issue at Hand”
According to the AG, just granting a right of review has no effect on altering the facts of a case. The facts of the case, he claimed, would not change even if fresh arguments were raised during the review.
The real issue, according to attorney Ali Zafar, was whether the law that had been passed could be implemented through a bill or if a constitutional change was necessary. He continued by saying that the attorney general had not provided a response.
The judge then reserved the decision and ordered the parties to submit their reasons of contention in writing.