SC permits petition seeking revision of its decision declaring perks granted to ex-MD & chairman of PTV Ataul Haq Qasmi as illegal

ISLAMABAD, June 06 (SABAH): The Supreme Court of Pakistan permitted a petition seeking revision of its decision declaring perks granted to former managing director and chairman of Pakistan Television (PTV) Ataul Haq Qasmi as illegal.

The apex court has ordered the revision appeals filed to be numbered. The petitioners were also permitted to change their lawyers under the new laws.

Lawyer Muhammad Akram Sheikh appeared on behalf of the former PTV MD and lawyer Salman Aslam Butt represented Finance Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar while former information minister Pervez Rashid was also granted permission to change his lawyer.

“In view of the new law, want to state additional facts in revision appeals,” said Akram Sheikh.

Upon this, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that a review appeal could be reviewed under the recently passed Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Bill, 2023.

“The SC had pronounced the decision of the MD PTV case under 184(3),” observed Justice Athar Minallah, “therefore, the petitioners should take advantage of the new law.”

“Your review request is pending,” Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik said, “Additional points in the pending revision may also be submitted through a miscellaneous application.” The proceedings were then adjourned indefinitely.

Notably, according to the statement of the objects and reasons of the Act, it is necessary to ensure fundamental rights to justice by providing for meaningful review of judgments and orders passed by the SC in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184.

It states that in case of judgment and orders of the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184 of the Constitution, the scope of review on both facts and law, shall be the same as an appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution.

Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan gives the Supreme Court the extraordinary power to assume jurisdiction over any “question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any…fundamental right.”

Previously, the bench that issued the original judgment would hear the review petition as well.

However, under the new law: “A review petition shall be heard by a bench larger than the bench which passed the original judgment in order. The review petitioner shall have the right to appoint any advocate of the Supreme Court of his choice for the review petition.”

It says the right to file a review petition shall also be available to an aggrieved person against whom an order has been made under clause (3) of the Article 184 of the Constitution, prior to the recommendation of this legislation.

“The petition shall be filed within sixty days of the commencement of this legislative piece. The legislation shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules or regulations for the time being in force of the judgment of any court including the Supreme Court and a high court.”