ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Friday dismissed the curative review petition moved by the PTI government before the Supreme Court against CJP-designate Qazi Faez Isa, after the incumbent coalition government sought to withdraw it.

Justice Isa is destined to become the 29th CJP on Sept 17, a day after Justice Bandial’s retirement.

“The appellants retain the unconditional right to withdraw their curative review petitions filed against the April 26, 2021, judgement in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case,” observed the CJP, who had earlier on June 8 reserved his ruling on the matter.

In his chambers, CJP Bandial had taken 18 applications seeking withdrawal of the curative review petition.

Justice Bandial acknowledges appellants’ unconditional right to withdraw their pleas

Through an unheard of legal remedy, the former PTI government had requested the Supreme Court that its April 26, 2021, majority judgement in the Justice Isa review case should not be left in the field for being manifestly and patently ‘unjust’, against the public interest and public good.

The SC, by a majority of six to four, had overturned in April 2021 its majority ruling of June 19, 2020, in which the court had ordered investigation by the tax authorities into three foreign properties in the name of Justice Isa’s spouse and children.

In his 13-page chamber order, the CJP referred to the principle of curative review petitions and explained that it was not disputed by the appellants that the existence of this jurisdiction has hitherto not been considered by the court. In fact, all the judgements cited by them reiterated that a second review was barred by law and that the court alone was empowered, if so inclined, to revisit, review or set aside its previous judgements/orders.

CJP Bandial also observed a study of the Indian law on curative review revealed it was a remedy altogether distinct from the suo motu jurisdiction. Whereas curative review has no standing in our jurisprudence, the availability of suo motu review has long been accepted, albeit in the limited circumstances of doing complete justice under Article 184(3) and/or Article 188 read with Article 187 of the Constitution, he noted.

Both types of judicial interventions — curative review and suo motu review — possess a similar purpose of correcting a fundamental error in a previous judgement or order, but the key difference between the two jurisdictions was mainly in their mode and manner of invocation, the CJP emphasised. The suo motu review could only be invoked by the SC in its discretion, including on the information received from an aggrieved or concerned party, he explained.

In the present case, however, neither any bench member nor any other SC judge had considered it necessary to revisit, review or set aside that judgement on the ground that it has had a significant impact on the fundamental rights of citizens; or that it was in the interest of the public good; or that it was per-incuriam, he noted.

Consequently, in the absence of such a judicial view and the lack of an enabling jurisdiction that allows an aggrieved or concerned party to file a second review, the appellants curative review petitions appear to be not maintainable, the CJP ruled.

Published in Dawn, July 22nd, 2023