BR100 Increased By (0.46%)
BR30 Increased By (0.2%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.53%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.55%)
AGHA 7.76 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.13%)
BECO 5.19 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BML 58.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-0.9%)
BOP 34.09 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (1.19%)
CNERGY 10.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-1.51%)
CSIL 5.42 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.26%)
FCCL 54.91 Increased By ▲ 1.17 (2.18%)
FFL 16.67 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (1.28%)
FNEL 1.25 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (2.46%)
KEL 7.37 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.24%)
KOSM 5.74 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.77%)
LOTCHEM 29.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.2%)
MLCF 95.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-1.01%)
NBP 204.38 Increased By ▲ 0.85 (0.42%)
NCPL 57.95 Increased By ▲ 1.10 (1.93%)
NPL 69.00 Increased By ▲ 1.69 (2.51%)
OGDC 317.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-0.23%)
PACE 10.70 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.66%)
PAEL 43.02 Increased By ▲ 1.25 (2.99%)
PIBTL 16.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.06%)
PPL 221.33 Increased By ▲ 1.16 (0.53%)
PRL 50.52 Increased By ▲ 1.47 (3%)
PTC 70.70 Increased By ▲ 0.69 (0.99%)
SSGC 28.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-2.57%)
TBL 9.85 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.82%)
TELE 8.82 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TPL 18.15 Increased By ▲ 0.98 (5.71%)
TPLP 12.89 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (3.04%)
TREET 22.88 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (1.28%)
TRG 59.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-0.63%)

ISLAMABAD: Two judges of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions of the PPPP, PML-N, and the Election Commission of Pakistan against the SC judgment in the reserved seats case.

Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, members of the 13-judge bench, on Monday announced detailed reasoning of their short order in the PTI reserved seats case.

The majority judgment, released on October 2, had allowed all Civil Review Petitions of the PPP, PML-N and the ECP and set aside the impugned detailed judgment of eight judges of the Supreme Court dated 12.07.2024.

The minority judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha, stated that the Supreme Court, time and again, held that review jurisdiction has a limited scope and parties cannot reargue their case in this jurisdiction. A reviewable ground would essentially be one where the decision was per incuriam or where the error is so evident that it is floating on the surface of the record, having a substantial impact on the outcome of the list.

Justice Ayesha wrote that merely pointing out irregularities or errors having no bearing whatsoever on the judgment will not suffice. She pointed out that the apex court has also held that even where there is some material irregularity but no substantial injury is caused, then the judgment cannot be reviewed. “This Court has emphasized time and again that every judgment announced by the Supreme Court is considered to be solemn, final, and a conscious, deliberated decision where the power of review cannot be invoked as a routine matter and should be exercised in exceptional circumstances to avoid gross injustice,” she added.

The judgment stated that review is not synonymous with an appeal, and merely because the conclusion drawn is wrong in the eyes of the party, it does not constitute a reviewable ground. Furthermore, review is not a matter of right in which this Court should issue notice; rather, it is left to the discretion of the Court to determine whether any serious material error has been caused that requires reconsideration.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.