C.M.A. 2012 2023 10042023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, CJ (in Chambers)
C.M.A. 2012 OF 2023

IN
C.M. APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2021
The President of Pakistan and others

Versus
Justice Qazi Faez Isa
C.M. APPEAL 81 OF 2021

IN
C.R.P. NO. 296 OF 2020
IN CONST. P. 17 OF 2019
The President of Pakistan and others
Versus
Justice Qazi Faez Isa
C.M.A. 2013 OF 2023

IN
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

and others
Versus
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President

IN
C.R.P. NO. 297 OF 2020

and others
Versus
C.M.A. 2014 OF 2023

IN

and others
Versus
Mrs. Sarina Isa Wife of Qazi Faez Isa

CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 2

IN
C.R.P. NO. 298 OF 2020

and others
Versus
Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa
C.M.A. 2015 OF 2023

IN

and others
Versus
Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and

another

IN
C.R.P. NO. 299 OF 2020

and others
Versus

another
C.M.A. 2016 OF 2023

IN

and others
Versus
Muhammad Asif Reki, President Quetta Bar Association, Quetta and

another

IN
C.R.P. NO. 300 OF 2020

and others
Versus
Muhammad Asif Reki, President Quetta Bar Association, Quetta and

another
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 3
C.M.A. 2017 OF 2023

IN
and others
Versus
Shahnawaz Ismail, Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and

another

IN
C.R.P. NO. 301 OF 2020

and others
Versus
Shahnawaz Ismail, Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and

another
C.M.A. 2018 OF 2023

IN

and others
Versus
Balochistan Bar Council, through Vice Chairman Balochistan High Court,

Quetta and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 308 OF 2020

and others
Versus
Balochistan Bar Council, through Vice Chairman, Balochistan High Court,

Quetta and others
C.M.A. 2019 OF 2023

IN

and others
Versus
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General,

Islamabad and others
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 4

IN
C.R.P. NO. 309 OF 2020

and others
Versus

C.M.A. 2020 OF 2023

IN

and others
Versus
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman, Islamabad and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 509 OF 2020

and others
Versus
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman, Islamabad and others
C.M.A. 2021 OF 2023

IN
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman
Versus
Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 296 OF 2020
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman
Versus
Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others

CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 5
C.M.A. 2022 OF 2023

IN

Versus

IN
C.R.P. NO. 297 OF 2020

Versus
C.M.A. 2023 OF 2023

IN
Versus
Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 298 OF 2020

Versus
Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa and others
C.M.A. 2024 OF 2023

IN

Versus
others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 299 OF 2020
Versus

others
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 6
C.M.A. 2025 OF 2023

IN
Versus
Muhammad Asif Reki President Quetta Bar Association and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 300 OF 2020
Versus
Muhammad Asif Reki President Quetta Bar Association and others
C.M.A. 2026 OF 2023

IN

Versus
Shahnawaz Ismail Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 301 OF 2020

Versus
Shahnawaz Ismail Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and others
C.M.A. 2027 OF 2023

IN

Versus
Balochistan Bar Council through its Chairman, Quetta and others

IN
C.R.P. NO. 308 OF 2020
Versus
Balochistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman, Quetta and others
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 7
C.M.A. 2028 OF 2023

IN
Versus


IN
C.R.P. NO. 309 OF 2020
Versus

C.M.A. 2029 OF 2023

IN
Versus
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman and Chairman Executive,

IN
C.R.P. NO. 509 OF 2020
Versus
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman and Chairman Executive,
PRAYER :- “that CMAs may kindly be accepted and the appellants may
be allowed to withdraw the C.M. Appeals and Curative
Review, in the interest of justice.”
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 8
DATE OF ORDER OF HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

HEARING
10.04.2023 For the applicant(s)/appellant(s)
Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, Attorney General for Pakistan
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AG
........
Through these 18 Civil Misc. Applications the
appellants seek the withdrawal of their curative review
petitions filed against the Supreme Court’s (“the Court”)
decision dated 26.04.2021 given in its review jurisdiction in
Justice Qazi Faez Isa Vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 2022
SC 119) (“Subject Judgment”).
2. The facts giving rise to the present withdrawal
applications are that by a majority of 6-4 the Court vide the
Subject Judgment allowed the review petitions filed by Mr.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa and other parties against the decision
of the Court dated 19.06.2020 delivered in Justice Qazi
Faez Isa Vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 2021 SC 1)
(“original judgment”). As a result, certain directions issued
to the Federal Board of Revenue and the Supreme Judicial
Council by the original judgment were recalled. Aggrieved by
the Subject Judgment, the appellants preferred curative
review petitions before the Court on 25.05.2021.
3. The Institution Officer raised certain objections on the
filing of the curative review petitions. The main objection
urged was that the purpose behind seeking a curative review
is to avail a second review which is not entertainable under
Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980
(“1980 Rules”). In response to the objections, the appellants
filed chamber appeals under Order V, Rule 3 of the 1980
Rules. During the pendency of these appeals on 31.03.2023
the President, whilst acting on the advice of the Prime
Minister, granted his authorisation to the concerned

CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 9
ASC/AOR for the withdrawal of the curative review petitions
filed by the appellants. These withdrawal applications are
fixed for decision in Chambers today.
4. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan and the
learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan entered
appearance on behalf of the appellants. The rationale behind
withdrawing the curative review petitions is reflected in the
Federal Cabinet’s decision dated 27.07.2022. Essentially the
legal points pressed are:
i. That the 1980 Rules prohibit the filing of a second

review petition after the final disposal of the first
review petition; and
ii. That the curative review petitions have been filed on
the strength of a judgment delivered by the Indian
Supreme Court (“SCI”) in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs.
Ashok Hurra (AIR 2002 SC 1771) wherein the SCI
had explicitly recognised its right to ‘re-consider its
judgments in exercise of its inherent power.’ However,
no pronouncement to such effect has been made by
the Court. Hence, the concept of a curative review
petition is alien to the laws and jurisprudence of
Pakistan and therefore these petitions being not
maintainable are liable to be withdrawn.
5. I have heard the learned Attorney General and have
also perused the record. The bar on filing a second review
petition is declared in the 1980 Rules in the following words:
“ORDER XXVI
REVIEW
...
9. After the final disposal of the first application
for review no subsequent application for review
shall lie to the Court and consequently shall
not be entertained by the Registry.”
This bar has also been affirmed by a 5 Member Bench of the
Court in Khalid Iqbal Vs. Mirza Khan (PLD 2015 SC 50) at
para 12. Therefore, under the current scheme of the law the
appellants appear to be precluded from filing a review
against the Subject Judgment because it has finally

CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 10
disposed of the review petitions filed against the original
judgment.
6. Be that as it may, the Court in the past has of its own
motion corrected its decisions wherein wrong principles of
law have been laid down. In this regard the dictum of the
Court in the case of Khalid Iqbal (supra) is illustrative:
“13. This, however, does not mean that the

jurisdiction of this Court is barred by any
restriction placed by the Constitution; there is
no Article in the Constitution which imposes
any restriction or bar on this Court to revisit its
earlier decision or even to depart from them,
nor the doctrine of stare decisis will come in its
way so long as revisiting of the judgment is
warranted, in view of the significant impact on
the fundamental rights of citizens or in the
interest of public good. This issue was fully
comprehended and answered in the case titled
Regarding pensionary benefits of the
Judges of Superior Courts from the Date of
their respective retirements, irrespective of
their length of service as such Judges (PLD
2013 SC 829 at page 993). The relevant
portions are reproduced herein below:--…
4. … Therefore, if any law which has been

invalidly pronounced and declared by this
Court, which in particular is based upon
ignorance of any provisions of the Constitution,
and/or is founded on gross and grave
misinterpretation thereof; the provisions of the
relevant law have been ignored, misread and
misapplied; the law already enunciated and
settled by this Court on a specific subject, has
not been taken into account, all this, inter alia,
shall constitute a given judgment(s) as per
incuriam… Therefore, if a judgment or a
decision of this Court which is found to be per
incuriam… it shall be the duty of this Court to
correct such wrong verdict and to set the law
right. And the Court should not shun from
such a duty…
On perusal of the paragraphs referred to

hereinabove, we can safely reach a conclusion
that this Court has absolute powers to re-visit,
to review and or to set aside its earlier
judgments/orders by invoking its Suo Motu
Jurisdiction under Articles 184(3), 187 or 188
of the Constitution. The Powers of this Court to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under the
above referred Articles of the Constitution are
not depend[e]nt upon an application of a
party.”
(emphasis supplied)
What becomes apparent from the above-quoted passages is
that our jurisprudence recognises the Court’s Suo Motu
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and Article 188 read with
Article 187 of the Constitution to re-visit, review or set aside

CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 11
its judgments/orders that have finally disposed of the first
review petitions. However, such jurisdiction has so far not
been invoked by the Court in the present matter.
7. Insofar, as the principle of curative review petitions is
concerned, it is not disputed by the appellants that the
existence of this jurisdiction has hitherto not been
considered by the Court. In fact, all the judgments cited by
them in support of their curative review petitions reiterate
what has been held above: that a second review is barred by
law and that the Court alone is empowered, if so inclined, to
re-visit, review or set aside any of its previous
judgments/orders.
8. Further a study of the Indian law on curative review
reveals that it is a remedy altogether distinct from the Suo
Motu exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Whereas curative
review has no standing in our jurisprudence the availability
of Suo Motu review has long been accepted by the Court,
albeit in the limited circumstances of doing complete justice
under Article 184(3) and/or Article 188 read with Article 187
of the Constitution. It is of course clear that both types of
judicial interventions, curative review and Suo Motu review,
possess a similar purpose i.e., to correct a fundamental
error in a previous judgment/order. However, the key
difference, inter alia, between the two jurisdictions lies
mainly in their mode and manner of invocation. Order
XLVIII, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 mandates
that curative review must be invoked by a party:
“Order XLVIII
CURATIVE PETITION
…
2. (1) The petitioner, in the curative petition,
shall aver specifically that the grounds
mentioned therein had been taken in the
Review Petition and that it was dismissed by
circulation.”
(emphasis supplied)
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 12
On the other hand, Suo Motu review can only be invoked by
the Court in its discretion, including on the information
received from an aggrieved or concerned party. Therefore,
the lack of the proceedings being initiated by a party is
inconsequential to the Court’s exercise of Suo Motu
jurisdiction. That does not appear to be the case for curative
review petitions filed in the SCI.
9. In the present case no Hon’ble Member of the Bench
that delivered the Subject Judgment (nor any other Judge of
the Court) has so far considered it necessary to re-visit,
review or set aside that judgment on the ground that it has
had a significant impact on the Fundamental Rights of
citizens; or that it is in the interest of the public good; or
that it is per incuriam. 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.
10. In the above circumstances the ordinary course of
action would have been to refer the matter to the Court for a
conclusive determination on its maintainability. However,
the appellants are now seeking the withdrawal of their
curative review petitions. This right of the appellants to
withdraw their curative review petitions (and generally of
parties to withdraw their cases) is acknowledged by the law
[ref: Reviews on behalf of Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani
Sheikh (PLD 2013 SC 1024]. Exceptions to the said rule
exist for instance public interest litigation filed under Article
184(3) of the Constitution cannot be withdrawn except with
the permission of the Court [ref: Jurists Foundation Vs.
Federal Government (PLD 2020 SC 1) at para 6]. But that
exception is not applicable to the instant case because it is
not litigation in the public interest. Rather the present

CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 13
matter emanates from Article 209 of the Constitution which
grants the Supreme Judicial Council, and not the Court, the
exclusive power to inquire into the misconduct of a Superior
Court Judge. Therefore, the appellants retain the
unconditional right to withdraw their curative review
petitions filed against the Subject Judgment. This result is,
however, without prejudice to what has been noted above,
namely, that the pendency of proceedings or the presence of
a party is not necessary for the Court to exercise Suo Motu
jurisdiction. All that is required for the Court to act is
cognizable information.
11. The instant Civil Misc. Applications filed by the
appellants are accordingly allowed and their curative review
petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
Umar Ata Bandial
Chief Justice
APPROVED FOR REPORTING

C.M.A. 2012 2023 10042023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C.M.A. 2012 2023 10042023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C.M.A. 2012 2023 10042023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

C.M.A. 2012 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan and others

C.M. APPEAL 81 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan and others

C.M.A. 2013 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President

C.M. APPEAL 82 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President

C.M.A. 2014 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Mrs. Sarina Isa Wife of Qazi Faez Isa

C.M. APPEAL 83 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa

C.M.A. 2015 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and

C.M. APPEAL 84 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and

C.M.A. 2016 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Muhammad Asif Reki, President Quetta Bar Association, Quetta and

C.M. APPEAL 85 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Muhammad Asif Reki, President Quetta Bar Association, Quetta and

C.M.A. 2017 OF 2023

Shahnawaz Ismail, Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and

C.M. APPEAL 86 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Shahnawaz Ismail, Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and

C.M.A. 2018 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Balochistan Bar Council, through Vice Chairman Balochistan High Court,

C.M. APPEAL 87 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Balochistan Bar Council, through Vice Chairman, Balochistan High Court,

C.M.A. 2019 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General,

C.M. APPEAL 88 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General,

C.M.A. 2020 OF 2023

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

C.M. APPEAL 89 OF 2021

The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad

C.M.A. 2021 OF 2023

Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman

C.M. APPEAL 90 OF 2021

Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman

Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others

C.M.A. 2022 OF 2023

Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman

C.M. APPEAL 91 OF 2021