ISLAMABAD: A supreme court bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial heard the election commission’s review petition in Punjab general election case, ARY News reported on Tuesday.
The election commission’s counsel Sajeel Swati resuming his arguments said, he didn’t receive reply of any party in the case including the PTI.
He sought an opportunity to see all replies. “You start arguments over your petition,” Chief Justice Bandial told the ECP lawyer. “You can raise a new matter in the next hearing,” CJP said.
ECP lawyer Sajeel Swati argued that Article 188 not restricts powers but enhances them. “The constitution allows review, can we help you, what has been said in replies,” chief justice asked the lawyer.
The election commission’s lawyer argued that the scope of review is not limited in constitutional cases. “The supreme court’s jurisdiction can be enhanced but not restricted,” the lawyer said.
“The supreme court’s jurisdiction restricts in review petitions in civil and criminal cases,” he argued.
“Approaching court for fundamental rights is a case of civil nature,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked. “A court proceeding under Article 184 (iii) is not a case of civil nature,” election commission’s lawyer said. “A part of Article 184 (iii) belongs to public interest and another to fundamental rights,” Justice Ahsan said.
“Crores of people’s rights have been attached with elections,” Justice Munib Akhtar observed. “Holding elections in 90 days has been in public interest,” he said. ” According to you, if an appeal comes from the high court, has limited court jurisdiction,” he further said.
“In review case you are saying the court’s jurisdiction is not limited, isn’t it discrimination with the rights’ case. Why the court creates an ambiguity in its jurisdiction,” the judge questioned.
“There is no right to appeal in Article 184, the scope of review could not be restricted owing to lack of right to appeal,” Sajeel Swati said. “The court should keep the need of justice in review and should not indulge in procedural issues. A new point can be raised in constitutional cases,” ECP lawyer argued. “Are you arguing that in 184 (iii) cases, review should be heard like an appeal,” Justice Munib asked. “Yes, I am saying that in 184 (iii) review is an appeal,” ECP lawyer said. “The review scope should not be limited in 184 (iii) cases,” Sajeel Swati argued.
“You have raised good points in your arguments,” CJP told the ECP lawyer. “Judicial references are not satisfactory over these points,” CJP said.
“If your arguments are accepted, it will be repeat hearing in review. It is not written in the constitution that the review and appeal have same scope,” Justice Ahsan remarked. “The constitution also not restricts the scope,” election commission counsel said.
” The review should not be converted into the appeal,” CJP said. “The constitution has not granted the right to appeal in Article 184 (iii), it must clear for expansion in the scope,” chief justice said.
“There will be several complications if your argument accepted,” Justice Munib said. “The court should exercise its powers under Article 187 for comprehensive justice,” lawyer said.
“It will become convenient with the court’s detailed decision,” ECP lawyer further said.
“The election commission and the government are treating this proceeding with seriousness. The government had objected over the bench in the past. The issue of 4-3 was raised,” chief justice said.
“Why it was not submitted earlier, what you have given in the writing,” CJP said. “If any other institution has forced the election commission to adopt this stance,” Justice Bandial asked.
“A new stance even could not be taken in an appeal,” Justice Munib Akhtar said.
The court adjourned further hearing of the election commission’s review petition in Punjab elections case till 12:15 on Wednesday (tomorrow).
 Umar Ata Bandial heard the election commission's review petition in Punjab general election case.){kind=link}