AGL40.5▲ 0.47 (0.01%)AIRLINK135▲ 5.69 (0.04%)BOP6.9▲ 0.1 (0.01%)CNERGY4.56▼ -0.08 (-0.02%)DCL8.85▲ 0.22 (0.03%)DFML41.4▲ 0.45 (0.01%)DGKC85.62▼ -0.12 (0.00%)FCCL33.1▲ 0.1 (0.00%)FFBL68.7▲ 2.17 (0.03%)FFL11.48▲ 0.02 (0.00%)HUBC110.4▼ -0.18 (0.00%)HUMNL14.65▲ 0.02 (0.00%)KEL5.48▲ 0.24 (0.05%)KOSM8.38▲ 0.27 (0.03%)MLCF40.07▲ 0 (0.00%)NBP61.44▲ 0.93 (0.02%)OGDC198.26▲ 2.79 (0.01%)PAEL27.39▲ 0.29 (0.01%)PIBTL7.67▲ 0.03 (0.00%)PPL159.5▲ 3.68 (0.02%)PRL27.44▲ 0.07 (0.00%)PTC18.75▲ 0.19 (0.01%)SEARL84.52▼ -0.58 (-0.01%)TELE8.49▲ 0.59 (0.07%)TOMCL35.15▲ 0.27 (0.01%)TPLP9.15▼ -0.07 (-0.01%)TREET16.9▲ 0.09 (0.01%)TRG65.72▲ 2.86 (0.05%)UNITY28.11▲ 0.36 (0.01%)WTL1.31▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

Review hearing can be reheard if correct legal route followed: CJP

bandial punjab
Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday said review hearings of the apex court could be made into rehearings if the correct legal route was followed.

The CJP’s remarks came as a three-member bench of the top court resumed hearing petitions against the recently introduced SC (Review of Judgments and Orders) Bill, 2023 on Thursday. The bench was led by Justice Bandial and comprised of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar.

During the hearing, the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Dr Mansoor Awan began arguments in favour of the law in “five points” regarding the evolution of the scope of the revision in Pakistan.

AGP Awan stated that he would assist the legislature in its legislative powers and would present arguments on the revision of jurisdiction and admissibility.

Awan continued that he would read the judg ment and explain how the jurisdiction of Article 184(3)of the Constitution expanded over the years.

Justice Ahsan maintained that he was interested in knowing why and how the revisional jurisdiction should extend with Article 184(3).

The chief justice advised the AGP to “understand” the position of the petitioner who “did not object” to the bill, rather welcomed it but with “the necessary amendments”. Justice Bandial added that the top court itself believed the scope should be wide but reasons be provided for it, otherwise, the affairs of the court would be disturbed.

 

Related Posts

Get Alerts