The hearing of the petitions filed against the SC Review of Orders and Judgments Act and the Punjab Election Revision Case was held simultaneously in the SC.
![SCP will Try to Decide on ECP’s Punjab Election at Earliest: CJP](https://keepnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/InShot_20230607_155242676-300x171.jpg)
A (3-member bench) headed by the CJP heard the cases, the bench includes Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar.
When the hearing started, the CJP said that we have received some requests, the publish of the Review Act has to be seen at a stage, the Attorney General is notified, after the notice on the Review Act, the bench under the Election CASE Act Listen, Mr. Ali Zafar, you also tell your point of view on the Review Act.
The PTI lawyer, Barrister Ali Zafar, said that the SC Review Act is against the Constitution, the same issue was raised in the Practice and Procedure Act, the SC has placed a ban on the Practice and Procedure Act. The injunction of the Act also applies to the Review Act, the SCP can hear the Election Revision case, the SC Revive Act is not applicable to this Court because of the injunction, the court can stay the decision on the Revision Act till the decision of the Review Act. Arguments in the election review case are almost over, now the case should be completed.
The @Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if the Review Act is implemented, then the lawyer of the EC will have to give arguments again in the larger bench. How can the court hear the Punjab election case if the SC Review Act has been implemented? Tell us how the Supreme Court Review Act is not applicable in the PUNJAB Election review case?
The CJP said that everyone wants the Punjab election review case to be decided, the Election Commission‘s counsel argued that they have wider powers, appeals also have certain limits, the Punjab election review case is not new. , it has been discussed earlier, the arguments of the counsel of the EC were on expanding the scope of review, if the election review case goes to a larger bench, then the counsel of the EC can start arguments from there.
Elections are mandatory in 90 days: Chief Justice
The CJ said that the issue of elections is a national issue, it is not possible to implement the decision of May 14, but this decision has become history, the court decision will remain in history that elections are mandatory in 90 days. Therefore, 90 days can be extended, are the circumstances after the events of May 9, which are listed in the constitution for Postponement of elections? Everything cannot be done by violence and force.
Review Order Act:
The Barrister Ali Zafar, PTI’s lawyer, requested to decide the Punjab election review case or said that whatever the circumstances or arguments, the Punjab court should quickly decide the Punjab Election review case. On the night of May 15, I felt that the constitution died. The fixed term of the elections and the decision of the SC were insulted. Every day I feel that the Constitution has been killed. Everyone including the PM and the CJ have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
The Barrister Ali Zafar said that when the review act was passed, you said in the senate that how are you making laws that contradict the constitution? This review act was passed by the Senate in 5 Minutes and there was no debate there. The amendments in Article 184-3 are certainly good, but this is possible only through constitutional amendments. Laws related to the independence of the judiciary can only be made through constitutional amendments.
The CJ asked whether you think the Govt has given the right to appeal in Article 184-3, which is oppoes to the constitution. Barrister Ali Zafar said that the points which were not raised in the main case cannot be brought up in revision.
The CJP said that there are good amendments related to Article 184-3 in this law, the only mistake he made was that he called the revision of Article 184-3 as an appeal, he will ask the Attorney General why the Govt made a mistake.
The Attorney General replied that the petitioners against the SC Review Act are in their personal capacity, if Ali Zafar wants to be a party to the case, then file the petition.
The CJ said that tell me some way to save time, the good thing is that the Govt and the government institutions have decided to follow the law, today the thinking of the Govt is not based on mathematics but on the law and facts We appreciate the good legislations, the Govt was protesting at the gates, did the protest mean to obstruct justice? This work of justice that we are doing is the work of Maula Karim, to interfere in our work is to interfere with the truth.
Petitioner Zaman Khan Wardag and other petitioner Ghulam Mohiuddin adopted the arguments of Barrister Ali Zafar against the Supreme Court Review of Orders and Judgments Act.
The court publish notice to the parties in the SC Review of Orders and Judgments Act case.
The court says that the petitions came oppoes to the SC Review of Orders and Judgments Act, according to the petitioners, the act to extend the scope of review is illegal, according to the petitioners, constitutional amendment is necessary to expand the jurisdiction of review, the Supreme Court. A larger bench has already issued an injunction on the Practice and Procedure Act, fixing the two cases for hearing together on Tuesday.
The court has also issued notices to the Attorney General, the party president, the federal Govt, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs in the Supreme Court Review of Orders and Judgments Act case.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till June 13.
The CJP said that it is possible to hear on a daily basis from Tuesday, the Punjab elections case will also be scheduled along with the revival case. It may be noted that on May 29, a gazette notification was issued for the implementation of the Supreme Court Review of Orders and Judgments Act, 2023.
Under the new law, appeals can be filed within 60 days of decisions under 184/3. A bench larger than a bench will listen. The new law, the scope of a revision petition will now be the same as that of an appeal, in the past, a review petition would be heard by the same bench that passed the judgment.