19/08/2023
A review remains a review and cannot be changed to an appeal, otherwise it does not remain a review.”
Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Federation of Pakistan & another
CONSTITUTION PETITIONS NO.21, 22 & 23 OF 2023
Review: A review is a limited process where the same court that made the initial decision looks for clear and manifest errors of law or fact in its own precious decision, aiming to correct these errors without rehearing the case or introducing new evidence.
Appeal: An appeal is a formal process in which a higher court, such as the Supreme Court, re-evaluates a lower court’s decision, considering both errors of law and additional evidence, and can lead to a complete rehearing of the case.
Keynote: The 2023 Act attempts to merge review and appellate jurisdictions of the Supreme Court, violating the Constitution. Section 2 of the 2023 Act tried to enlarge the Jurisdiction of the SC, which cannot be achieved without amendment of various articles of the 1973 Constitution and therefore stands unconstitutional.
Summary of Judgment:
- The Petitioners have challenged the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023, through the instant Petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
- The court establishes that the petitions challenging the Act are maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the authority to hear cases involving matters of public importance.
- The court rules that the Act exceeds Parliament's legislative authority and is therefore ultra vires the Constitution. By extending review beyond the guidelines established by the Constitution itself, it substantially modifies the system of checks and balances.
- The core Section 2, which transforms review petitions into appeals before larger benches is deemed unconstitutional and void. The remaining provisions of the Act are structured around this fundamental clause.
- The court examines sections 3-7 of Act in further detail. Section 3 provides for the formation of larger benches, Section 4 addresses the jurisdiction of such benches, and Section 5 permits petitions for review based on facts and the law. The court emphasizes that the constitutionality of these sections is interdependent on that of Section 2, and without a valid Section 2, these provisions cannot hold.
- The court emphasizes the significance of respecting the finality of judgments and the precedence created by its decisions. The Act particularly Section 5 would jeopardize these principles and open the floodgates for litigation.
- Since Section 2 is deemed unconstitutional, the entire framework of Sections 3 through 7 collapses. Without a primary provision, the auxiliary provisions cannot stand on their own.
- In light of the above, the Supreme Court declares the Act 2023 void, and the review petition procedure governed by Article 188 of the Constitution and the 1980 Rules remains the controlling law.
