ISLAMABAD:
Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has emphasised that a review of a judgment or order is a serious legal measure that should only be undertaken when there is a clear and undeniable error or oversight on record that results in a miscarriage of justice.
In a seven-page additional note authored during the hearing of a review petition, Justice Mazhar wrote that if the error in the judgment is so obvious and apparent, so material that, had it been noticed prior to the rendering of the judgment, the conclusion would have been different, then a review petition is justified.
He observed that the constitution does not impose any restriction on the Supreme Court’s power to review its earlier decisions or even to depart from them.
“ Nor does the doctrine of stare decisis stand in the way, so long as the review is warranted due to its significant impact on the fundamental rights of citizens or in the interest of public good. The Court is also competent to review its judgment or order suo motu, without any formal application.”
The note was issued alongside a ruling by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, which dismissed the review petition and stressed the need to discourage the filing of frivolous reviews.
Justice Mazhar, in his additional note, clarified that the review jurisdiction of the SC is not a fallback option for unsuccessful litigants to reopen cases, but a narrowly defined judicial tool meant to correct glaring and consequential errors.
He observed that while interpreting provisions of law or the Constitution, some errors might be apparent on the face of the record and cause substantial injury, necessitating remedial intervention to uphold justice.
Such instances, he explained, may include the discovery of new and significant evidence that was not available despite due diligence, a mistake or error clearly visible on the record, or other sufficient cause. The ground of “error apparent on the face of the record”, he added, applies to both civil and criminal review petitions.
“For such review to be entertained, the specific ground must not only be mentioned in the certificate of the advocate, but also be conspicuously spotted in the review petition, rather than relying on sweeping or irrational grounds having no nexus with the case,” the note read.
“Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the Judges of the apex Court to correct their errors, because the principles of law enunciated in their judgments are binding on all other courts in the country under Article 189 of the Constitution.”
“Orders based on an erroneous assumption of material facts, or those made without adverting to a provision of law, or reflecting a departure from the undisputed construction of law and the Constitution, may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and can be rectified.”
Justice Mazhar expressed concern over the growing trend of filing review petitions indiscriminately, often backed by certificates from advocates that merely repeat arguments already addressed in the original case.
“At present, it has become a custom or routine practice to file review applications unwarily and injudiciously, based on certificates issued by advocates that merely imitate the grounds already urged and decided in the main petition or appeal, without specifying any genuine error in the judgment or order which merits its reversal.”
He noted that it was high time that the practice be denounced and condemned, as it constituted “nothing but a waste and depletion of the precious time of the Court and places an unnecessary burden on its docket”.
