The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea to immediately suspend the recently promulgated review of judgements law, and adjourned the hearing till today, a private TV channel reported. A three-member Supreme Court bench was hearing the election commission’s review application in the Punjab elections case. Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial headed the bench that also comprises Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar. The court had issued notices to all the parties, including the Pakistan Bar Council and attorney general. The AGP is expected to apprise the court of the federal government’s stance on the review of judgements law. During the hearing, CJP Bandial highlighted certain loopholes in Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023. He observed that ‘super appeal’ has been created through this law. “Don’t you think they should have made this law carefully rather than hastily,” the CJP asked Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s counsel Ali Zafar. He said that the parliament could have given the affect of Article 187 of the Constitution for doing complete justice in review jurisdiction. He also referred to the example of India wherein review jurisdiction was widened on two grounds. The chief justice noted that through this law the legislators created jurisdiction of review equal to an appeal. If the case being made against the law is not strong, then rules and procedures moving forward will be set, said the CJP. The ECP’s lawyer argued that under the current law, a three-member bench cannot hear the review petition. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023 was inconsistent with Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan and interfered with the independence of the judiciary. The counsel moved the court to suspend the law and refer the matter to an eight-member bench for hearing. The CJP remarked that the bench could not repeatedly suspend laws. “We suspended a law earlier, we cannot suspend another.” Meanwhile, the court accepted the PTI’s plea to be made party to the case. PTI’s lawyer Zafar informed the court that the petition has been submitted on behalf of Omer Ayyub. He maintained that the SC has the authority to review decisions. Both the right to appeal and to file for review are separate powers; the Constitution does not say an appeal can be filed against the SC’s decisions. The parliament can legislate according to the Constitution but no law can be made in violation of it, he argued. Justice Munib Akhtar observed that Article 188 was an act of parliament. Doesn’t the nature of a review petition change through the Act, he questioned. At this, PTI’s counsel said that if laws are made this way then who is to say another law wouldn’t be introduced tomorrow regarding a second appeal? The new law is giving the shape of an appeal to a review, he said, arguing that if appeal after appeal can be filed against the SC’s decisions then its rulings would not be final. The CJP observed that appeals and reviews are very different. Now this law has conflated the two, he noted. Will there now be an option to file a review against an appeal as well, he asked.