The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan has ruled that the Review of Judgements and Orders Act 2023 is unconstitutional and struck it down. The Act aimed to expand the scope of review petitions, granting the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. However, the SC bench, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, declared that the law interfered with the powers and jurisdiction of the court and had no constitutional basis.
The Supreme Court’s order stated that any attempt through ordinary legislation to modify the court’s powers and jurisdiction, including review jurisdiction, would be an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution. The judgement emphasized that the Constitution did not provide Parliament with the authority to expand the SC’s review jurisdiction under Article 188. It further stated that any legislation undermining the independence of the judiciary would be unconstitutional and void.
The order highlighted that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to convert the court’s review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction. It reiterated that ordinary laws could not amend or alter the Constitution.
The Review of Judgements Act was passed by Parliament on May 5 amid contention with the judiciary. The government claimed that the law aimed to enhance the Supreme Court’s ability to review judgements and orders, while the opposition viewed it as an attempt to overturn the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the PML-N party.
The law granted the right to file an appeal within 30 days of judgement in suo motu cases, potentially enabling Nawaz Sharif and other parliamentarians disqualified by the Supreme Court to appeal their disqualification.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court’s decision comes shortly after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Nawaz Sharif’s upcoming return to Pakistan next month.
The Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the necessity for a constitutional amendment to redefine the court’s jurisdiction and protect the independence of the judiciary.