A three-member of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of
Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Munib
Akhtar listened the case.
At the beginning of the hearing, Lawyer Common for Pakistan
(AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan contended that there were distinctive judgments of the
summit court with respect to the powers of the Parliament for enactment. He
said that in Article 184/3 cases a separate jurisdiction was set for review of
judgments.
The AGP said that before the introduction of the Act which
did not affect anyone's right, there was no way of revision in Article 184/3
cases. He did not limit the scope of review. He said that under the Act it is
the power of the court to select the members of the bench for the revision case
and the bench should be larger than the bench which heard the main case.
Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that the government can
legislate but it does not seem appropriate to grant right of appeal in revision
cases. The government should decide on the matter after full consideration. He
noted that in cases like Article 184/3, there is no right of appeal even in
India.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned whether the powers of
revision under civil law can be compared to and whether civil laws fall under
the jurisdiction of the provinces. He said that the Act does not mention
provincial laws, he asked the AGP to argue on Section-II of the Act. He further
questioned whether the Supreme Court can raise any new legal points in the
revision appeal. . AGP replied in the affirmative.
The Chief Justice remarked that everyone is in agreement on
the point that Parliament has the power to extend the scope of the review. He
said that the government has converted the review into an appeal but it has to
give solid reasons for it.
The government should enact legislation but it should not
leave anything unclear in the law. He said why the government did not interpret
and revise the public interest.
The AGP requested the court to dismiss the petitions against
the Act as the petitioners are not directly affected by the legislation.
Petitioners can challenge the legislation in the High Courts under Article 199
of the Constitution. He further said that the existing legislation will not
affect the delivery of justice and decisions in revision cases.
Later, the court
reserved its decision after the AGP completed its arguments in the case.
