News

There should have been a constitutional amendment to give the right to appeal against the decision under Article 184 (3): Chief Justice

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Banyal says that the objection to the Supreme Court Review of Judgments and Order law is being raised that this law was made in haste, giving the right to appeal against the decision under clause 3 of Article 184. There should have been a constitutional amendment, Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that merely giving the right to appeal against the decision of Clause 3 of Article 184 is a discriminatory attitude.

The case related to the Supreme Court Review and Judgment Act was adjourned till tomorrow, the Attorney General will continue his arguments on Friday.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked that it is not wrong to extend the jurisdiction of the court, he believes that the rules have been changing with time, but it is not right to give the right of appeal through the law in revision.

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, heard the case. will disturb.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that I have difficulty in understanding how the revision against judgments in 184(3) was distinguished from other judgments. For me, the standard of review against all decisions of the Supreme Court is the same.

The Chief Justice said that even if the review rules were to be changed, there should have been a constitutional amendment. If the government wants to widen the jurisdiction of appeal against decisions of automatic notice, then 'most welcome' but the right of appeal can be given through constitutional amendment. , this is a hasty legislation by the government, we do not agree with this approach of the government.

Attorney General in his arguments told the court that with time the scope of 184 (3) has widened, the scope of revision should also have been wide, on which Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the matter should be brought before the court in revision. There is no dispute between the parties, the matter under consideration before the court in revision is its own previous decision.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing of the case, the Attorney General will continue his arguments on Friday.