Islamabad:
The judge of the Supreme Court, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, has emphasized that a review of a sentence or order is a serious legal measure that should only be carried out when there is an undeniable error or supervision or undeniable supervision that results in a spontaneous abortion of justice.
In an additional note of seven pages written during the hearing of a request for review, Judge Mazhar wrote that if the error in the trial is so obvious and apparent, so material that, if it had been noticed before the issuance of the sentence, the conclusion would have been different, then a request for review is justified.
He noted that the Constitution imposes no restriction on the power of the Supreme Court to review their previous decisions or even depart from them.
“… neither the doctrine of the Decisis of Stare is brought on the way, provided that the review is justified due to its important impact on the fundamental rights of citizens or in the interest of the public good. The court is also competent to review its judgment or order suo motu, without any formal request.”
The note was issued together with a ruling by a bank of three judges headed by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, who dismissed the request for review and emphasized the need to discourage the presentation of frivolous revisions.
Judge Mazhar, in his additional note, clarified that the SC review jurisdiction is not a backup option for failed litigants to reopen cases, but a closely defined judicial tool aimed at correcting obvious and consequent errors.
He observed that when interpreting the provisions of the law or the Constitution, some errors may be evident to the registration and cause substantial injuries, which requires a corrective intervention to defend justice.
These instances, he explained, may include the discovery of new and significant evidence that was not available despite due diligence, an error or error clearly visible in the registry or other sufficient cause. The land of “apparent error in the registry’s face,” he added, applies to civil and criminal review requests.
“For this review to be entertained, the specific land should not only be mentioned in the defender’s certificate, but will also be significantly seen in the request for revision, instead of relying on scanning or irrational reasons that do not have a link with the case,” said the note.
“Without a doubt, it is the duty of the judges of the Apex court to correct their mistakes, because the principles of law set forth in their judgments are binding for all other courts in the country under article 189 of the Constitution.”
“Orders based on an erroneous assumption of material facts, or those that are carried out without advancing to a provision of law, or that reflect a deviation from the undisputed construction of the law and the Constitution, may be equivalent to an apparent error in the face of the registration and can be rectified.”
Judge Mazhar expressed concern about the growing tendency to present indiscriminate revision requests, often backed by certificates of defenders who simply repeat arguments already addressed in the original case.
“At present, it has become a personalized or routine practice to submit wireless and insulting review requests, based on certificates issued by defenders that simply imitate the reasons already urged and determined in the main request or appeal, without specifying any genuine error in the trial or order that its reversal deserves.”
He pointed out that it was time for the practice to be denounced and condemned, since it constituted “nothing more than a waste and exhaustion of the precious court of the court and places an unnecessary burden in its file.”
