ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi have held that the scope of a review petition is limited, and only those judgments are open to review which contain a clear legal error.
Both the judges issued a joint dissenting note, dismissing the review petitions filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the reserved seats case.
The six-page joint dissenting note authored by Justice Ayesha held that the three review petitions were filed against the short order of July 9, 2024, while only the ECP filed additional petitions based on the detailed judgement of September 23, 2024.
The two judges held that all legal issues and arguments had already been addressed in the detailed judgement; however, the petitioners’ counsels attempted to reopen the case, which is not permissible under the law, as the process of review does not hold the same weight as an appeal.
They held that the scope of a review petition is limited, and only those judgments containing a clear legal error are open to review. “Minor irregularities or differences of opinion cannot justify a review,” the two judges held, adding that Supreme Court judgements are issued after thorough deliberation and, therefore, reviews should not become a routine procedure.
They noted that most of the review petitions are filed merely out of dissatisfaction rather than on solid legal grounds — and the petitions under consideration were of the same nature, lacking any strong legal justification.
Justice Ayesha and Justice Aqeel held that the PMLN and PPP did not raise any specific objections to the detailed judgement but only challenged the short order, even though their petitions were filed on July 13, when the detailed judgement had not yet been issued.
“Despite the considerable time gap, the petitioners failed to present any new position or legal basis,” they held. Similarly, the two judges also expressed serious reservations about the composition of the bench, declaring it contrary to established judicial principles.
They noted that while the original case was heard by a 13-member bench, five of those judges — including those who authored the judgement — were not included in the current bench.
“This change in the bench’s composition was made under Article 191A of the Constitution, which was introduced through the 26th Constitutional Amendment,” the two judges noted, adding that the after the 26th Amendment, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan nominates judges for constitutional benches, and members of the Senate and National Assembly have also been included in the commission.
“As a result, the commission now has a political majority, which raises concerns about the judiciary’s impartiality and transparency,” the two judges held, adding that the current bench appeared to have been constituted based on the political majority of the PMLN and PPP, which undermines the principle of judicial independence.
“Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the Judicial Commission and the committee responsible for forming constitutional benches to ensure neutrality and that bench formation must comply with constitutional requirements and the principles of transparency,” the judges held
They noted that when the transparency of bench formation itself is in question, the entire judicial process becomes doubtful — posing a threat to public confidence and the balance of the justice system.
