The Unfolding Saga of Justice: Parliament's Bold Move to Reshape Supreme Court Review

Well, here we are again, standing at a rather significant crossroads in Pakistan's judicial and political journey. It seems Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, never one to shy from a constitutional challenge, has once more brought a rather weighty piece of legislation to the National Assembly. We're talking about the 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill, a document poised to, perhaps, fundamentally reshape how Supreme Court decisions are reviewed.

You see, this isn't just another run-of-the-mill bill. Oh no. This is Parliament’s latest, and arguably most direct, response to a rather firm rebuke from the Supreme Court itself just last year. Remember the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act, 2023? That contentious piece of legislation from May, which essentially tried to create two — count 'em, two! — new avenues for reviewing the apex court's decisions? Well, on October 26, 2023, the Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, declared it unconstitutional. A clear line drawn in the sand, you could say.

And honestly, that previous Act? It was pretty significant. It aimed to grant a right of appeal within 30 days against any Supreme Court judgment stemming from its suo motu jurisdiction. And, not stopping there, it offered a second right of appeal for anyone feeling aggrieved by any SC judgment or order. Many, and I mean many, saw it as a deliberate pathway, a lifeline even, for prominent politicians — former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif being a notable example — who had faced disqualification, particularly under Article 63A. The Supreme Court, however, made its position quite clear: Parliament, they argued, simply doesn’t have the power to legislate on the inherent powers of the judiciary. A pretty weighty pronouncement, wouldn't you agree?

So, what’s the new plan? This latest bill, Tarar's offering, aims to amend Article 184(3) of the Constitution. And this is crucial. Article 184(3) is where the Supreme Court exercises its original jurisdiction, particularly in matters of public importance related to fundamental rights. It’s a powerful tool, often invoked in high-stakes cases. The proposed amendment, if passed, would add a new clause (4) to Article 184. This clause would state, quite explicitly, that "An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, order or sentence made by the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under clause (3)." What this means, in plain English, is that decisions made under that incredibly significant Article 184(3) would now, for the first time, be subject to an appeal.

Beyond that central amendment, the bill also looks to tweak Articles 188 (dealing with the review of judgments) and 189 (which addresses the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions). It even goes so far as to offer definitions for "aggrieved person" and "political party," showing just how comprehensive this push is. But, as with anything this sensitive, it hasn't been a universally welcomed proposal. Members of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), for instance, voiced their opposition rather loudly.

Yet, Law Minister Tarar, standing firm, championed the bill. He articulated Parliament's undeniable right — its sovereign right, one might say — to legislate. To him, this isn't about challenging the judiciary, but rather about empowering the Supreme Court itself to hear these appeals, thereby strengthening the entire judicial fabric. It’s a compelling argument, to be sure. But the bigger question, the one that hangs in the air, remains: will this new constitutional dance finally bring resolution, or merely usher in another round in the long-running contest between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence?