PTI's Review of Orders and Judgments Act promptly rejected the petition.
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court accepted the request of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf to become a party in the review case on the decisions of the Election Commission related to the Punjab elections, but rejected the request for immediate suspension of the Review of Orders and Judgments Act.
In the Supreme Court, the review of the Election Commission and the review of orders and judgments related to the Punjab elections was heard, the lawyer of PTI, Barrister Ali Zafar, requested to be a party, which was approved by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the request for immediate suspension of the Judgment Review Act and adjourned the hearing of the case till tomorrow. The arguments of the lawyers against the review act will continue tomorrow.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that there is a big difference between appeal and review, now appeal and review have been equalized through the Act, will there be an option of review against this appeal as well?
Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said in a dialogue with Ali Zafar that you have to be satisfied here, Ali Zafar said that if such laws continue to be made, the second appeal law will come tomorrow.
The Chief Justice said that in-chamber curative is in force in India, it is done on 2 grounds, it would not be good if Article 187 was included in the Review Act.
Earlier, the Chief Justice asked on whose behalf you filed these applications. Ali Zafar said that the petition was filed on behalf of PTI leader Umar Ayub, the Supreme Court has the authority to review the decisions, the review is mentioned in Article 188, what is meant by the review.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal asked what is the same in both laws. On which the counsel for the petitioner said that the revision act is against Article 10A, the revision also interferes with the independence of the judiciary, and the purpose of the Practice and Procedure Act and the Review Act is the same.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the two laws are related to separate jurisdictions, the petitioner’s counsel said that giving the right of appeal to the Supreme Court by mere legislation is unconstitutional.
Ali Zafar argued that there is a concept of finality in the decisions of the Supreme Court, the evidence is not reviewed in the review, the jurisdiction of the review cannot be the same as the appeal, and the review is only because there is a defect in it. previous decision. don’t be
He has said that judges like Justice Darab Patel, and Justice Fakhruddin Ji Ibrahim have given judgments on this, and all of them were heavyweight judges who were very clear.
The Chief Justice said that Article 188 is also related to Acts of Parliament, on which Ali Zafar argued that revision and appeal are two separate jurisdictions, the Constitution does not provide for an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court.
Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said that you are saying that the scope of the review will be the same as that of appeal.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal has said that if we suspended one law first, we cannot suspend another.
Later, the Supreme Court of Pakistan adjourned the hearing of the Election Commission’s review and orders and decisions related to the Punjab elections till tomorrow.