BR100 Increased By (0.2%)
BR30 Increased By (0.41%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.07%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.23%)
AGHA 7.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-2.15%)
BECO 5.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.19%)
BML 58.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-1%)
BOP 33.69 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.03%)
CNERGY 10.61 Increased By ▲ 0.80 (8.15%)
CSIL 5.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.21%)
FCCL 53.74 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (0.41%)
FFL 16.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-1.32%)
FNEL 1.22 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.83%)
KEL 7.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.95%)
KOSM 5.64 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.53%)
LOTCHEM 29.65 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (1.86%)
MLCF 96.36 Increased By ▲ 0.86 (0.9%)
NBP 203.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-0.4%)
NCPL 56.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-2.39%)
NPL 67.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-0.71%)
OGDC 318.22 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (0.09%)
PACE 10.63 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.75%)
PAEL 41.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.14%)
PIBTL 16.81 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (1.88%)
PPL 220.17 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (0.2%)
PRL 49.05 Increased By ▲ 4.46 (10%)
PTC 70.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.76 (-1.07%)
SSGC 29.14 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (0.73%)
TBL 9.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.71%)
TELE 8.82 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.68%)
TPL 17.17 Increased By ▲ 0.72 (4.38%)
TPLP 12.51 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (3.39%)
TREET 22.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.92%)
TRG 60.22 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (0.32%)

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.