Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 51(6)(d)(e), 106(3)(c), 187, 188 & 225—Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 57, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 98 & 104—Elections Rules, 2017, R.94 (Explanation)—Reserved seats—Allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims—Powers and jurisdiction of Election Commission of Pakistan—Scope of judicial review—Interpretation of constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of the Constitution and election laws for elections to reserved seats is identical in principle to that governing general seats. Nomination papers must be filed, scrutinized, and lists of candidates for reserved seats must be submitted by political parties in accordance with constitutional timelines. Since the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) neither contested the general election as a political party nor submitted any list of candidates for reserved seats before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), it was not entitled to any allocation of reserved seats. The unanimous dismissal of SIC’s appeals before the Supreme Court in 2024 had attained finality; therefore, SIC had no standing to reopen or contest the issue in review. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 187—“Complete justice”—Scope—Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—Limits. Article 187 is not a stand-alone provision and can be invoked only when the Court is properly seised of a lis under Articles 184, 185, 186 or 188 of the Constitution. The provision does not authorize the Court to legislate or grant relief to a person not before it, or to extend jurisdiction beyond the pleadings. The majority in the impugned judgment (PLD 2025 SC 67) had erred by granting relief to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which was neither a party to the proceedings nor had sought such relief. Substitution of constitutional text for subjective notions of equity or political preference constitutes a reviewable error apparent on the face of the record. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 51, 106, 187 & 225—Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66 & 67—Certificates of party affiliation—Validity. Certificates of party affiliation issued under Section 66 of the Elections Act, 2017, by the purported Chairman of PTI were held to be a nullity as his election was not recognized under the law; consequently, candidates filing such certificates were to be treated as independents under Section 67(2) of the Act. (d) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 225—Elections Act, 2017—Challenge to election results—Mandatory procedure—Effect of non-observance. The Court reaffirmed that any grievance against the decision of Returning Officers or election results must be pursued under the procedure prescribed by Article 225 of the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017. PTI and its candidates, having failed to challenge the Returning Officers’ orders declaring them independents, could not later claim that their seats be treated as PTI seats. (e) Constitutional law ----Review jurisdiction—Scope—Error apparent on the face of the record—Grounds. A review lies when a judgment is based on an erroneous assumption of material facts, contravenes a provision of law, departs from settled construction of the Constitution, or renders a constitutional provision inoperative for affected persons. Relief granted to a non-party, alteration of constitutional timelines, or exercise of legislative power in the guise of adjudication amounts to such an error warranting review. (f) Courts and jurisdiction ----Functus officio—Special bench for clarifications—Legality. Upon pronouncement of a judgment, all members of the Court become functus officio. The majority in the impugned judgment had constituted itself into a special bench for issuing further directions and clarifications; such constitution was unprecedented and contrary to law. After acceptance of the review petitions and setting aside of the impugned judgment, that self-constituted bench and its subsequent clarifications stood annulled. (g) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 27-A, C.P.C.—Notice to Attorney-General—Constitutionality of rules. Explanation to Rule 94 of the Election Rules, 2017, could not have been struck down without prior notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan as mandated by Order XXVII-A, C.P.C. The question of validity of the said Explanation was left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings after such notice. (h) Review petitions—Maintainability—Parties entitled to seek review—Authority of ECP to file review petition. The Court held that review petitions filed by political parties and individuals directly affected by the impugned judgment were maintainable. The Election Commission of Pakistan, being the constitutional body responsible for superintendence of elections, possessed the right to seek review where a question of law affecting its jurisdiction and future conduct of elections was involved. (i) Constitutional law ----Doctrine of separation of powers—Judicial restraint—Observations. The Court emphasized that judicial power must not transgress into the legislative domain. Relief granted beyond the pleadings and in disregard of express constitutional mandates undermines the constitutional scheme and the separation of powers. (g) Disposition— By a majority of seven judges (Amin-ud-Din Khan, Senior Judge; Musarrat Hilali; Naeem Akhter Afghan; Shahid Bilal Hassan; Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar; Aamer Farooq; and Ali Baqar Najafi, JJ.), all Civil Review Petitions were allowed; the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024 (PLD 2025 SC 67) was set aside; Civil Appeals Nos. 333 and 334 of 2024 filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council were dismissed, and the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 25.03.2024 was restored. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel partly allowed the review petitions to the extent of forty-one seats. Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi allowed the review petitions with directions to the ECP to undertake a de novo exercise regarding affiliation of all eighty returned candidates and decide allocation of reserved seats within fifteen days. Cited Cases: • Suba v. Fatima Bibi 1996 SCMR 158 • Pakistan v. Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd. PLD 2002 SC 208 • Managing Director SSGC v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 2003 SC 724 • Muhammad Siddiqul Farooq v. The State 2010 SCMR 198 • Dr. Raja Aamer Zaman v. Omar Ayub Khan 2015 SCMR 1303 • Basharat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akbar 2017 SCMR 309 • Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 119 • Nadia Naz v. President of Pakistan 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1353 • Supreme Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2024 SC 1199 • Inter Quest Informatics Services v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 SCMR 257.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 188---Review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court---Condonation of delay in filing a review petition---Scope---Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan (SCBAP) filed a Civil Review Petition (CRP) with a three-day delay, seeking condonation---Validity---Held, that under Art. 188, the Supreme Court has the constitutional power to review any judgment or order, subject to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980---Since the detailed reasons for the original judgment were issued after the filing of the CRP, the review petition was premature but justified---The inability of SCBAP to file a review within thirty days as per Order XXVI, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, was excusable due to the late issuance of reasons, and condonation was allowed. Cited Cases: Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd. PLD 2023 SC 241 (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ----Order XXVI, Rules 1, 3 & 4---Grounds for review---Requirement of certified copy of judgment---Scope---Under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, a review petition may only be filed on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, including errors apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reasons---Held, that a review petition must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, as per Rule 3, and must include a reasoned opinion from the Advocate certifying that a review is justified, as per Rule 4---Since the detailed reasons of the original judgment were issued after the review petition was filed, the review grounds were justified and the delay was condoned. Cited Cases: PLD 2023 Supreme Court 241 (c) Supreme Court Practice and Procedure ----Composition of Bench---Objections to Bench constitution---Judicial discretion---Scope---Petitioner objected to the composition of the Bench hearing the review petition, citing the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, and Ordinance No. VIII of 2024, which mandated that every case be assigned by a committee comprising the Chief Justice, the next most senior judge, and a nominated judge---Validity---Held, that while the ideal practice is for the review petition to be heard by the same Bench that delivered the original judgment (Order XXVI, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules), it was not practicable in the present case as the original Bench member, Munib Akhtar, J., had recused himself---The Bench was thus reconstituted lawfully, and objections were overruled. Cited Cases: Raja Amer Khan v. Federation of Pakistan PLJ 2024 SC 114 (d) Right to Counsel ----Right of legal counsel to meet client in custody---Scope---Counsel for PTI and Imran Khan sought permission to meet his client, who was confined in Adiala Jail, alleging procedural hurdles in doing so---Validity---Held, that the right of legal counsel to meet an incarcerated client is a fundamental component of due process---Additional Attorney General was directed to ensure that the counsel was granted access to meet his client immediately, with an additional meeting permitted the next day if required. Cited Cases: PLJ 2024 Supreme Court 114 (e) Procedural Fairness ----Issuance of notices in constitutional review petitions---Scope---Petitioner argued that formal notices should have been issued to all parties before the review petition was heard---Validity---Held, that the review petition was not an ordinary case affecting a private party’s property or rights but rather a matter of constitutional significance widely reported in the media---The Court had already allowed any interested party to submit applications for intervention, ensuring procedural fairness---Objections were overruled. Cited Cases: Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2022 Disposition: Delay in filing the review petition condoned; objections regarding Bench constitution, issuance of notices, and procedural fairness overruled; review petition to proceed for hearing.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 184(3), 188, 191 & Entry 55 of the Fourth Schedule Review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—Scope and limitations—Competence of Parliament to legislate on judicial review—Vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act, 2023 The petitioners challenged the vires of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act, 2023 (Act No. XXIII of 2023) on the ground that it was ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioners contended that review jurisdiction under Article 188 is distinct from appellate jurisdiction under Article 185, and the 2023 Act improperly merged the two by permitting an appeal against Supreme Court judgments in the guise of an "enlarged review" mechanism. It was further argued that Parliament lacks legislative competence to alter the Supreme Court's jurisdiction through ordinary legislation since the Constitution grants the power to regulate the Court’s practice and procedure exclusively to the Supreme Court under Article 191. The Court reaffirmed that finality is a fundamental principle of Supreme Court judgments, and permitting appeals under the guise of review would lead to judicial uncertainty. The 2023 Act was declared repugnant to and ultra vires the Constitution, being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and was struck down as null and void​ . (b) Separation of Powers & Judicial Independence ----Arts. 175, 189, 191 & Doctrine of Separation of Powers Judicial autonomy—Limits on legislative interference in judicial functions—Basic structure of the Constitution The Court held that the independence of the judiciary is a foundational principle of the Constitution and is beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. The Supreme Court reasoned that the authority to interpret the Constitution is exclusively vested in the judiciary, and any legislative attempt to transform review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction amounts to a direct encroachment on judicial independence. The principle of separation of powers dictates that Parliament cannot interfere with judicial functions except through a constitutional amendment. The Court emphasized that allowing an appeal against Supreme Court judgments would undermine judicial finality, creating an unprecedented legal anomaly. Consequently, Sections 2 and 3 of the 2023 Act were declared unconstitutional, rendering the entire statute void​ . (c) Fundamental Rights & Due Process ----Arts. 10-A, 25 & 8 Right to a fair trial—Judicial review as a safeguard against arbitrary decisions—Constitutionality of review mechanisms The petitioners contended that the 2023 Act violated fundamental rights under Article 10-A (Right to a Fair Trial) by removing the finality of Supreme Court judgments and introducing a quasi-appellate review mechanism that undermined procedural fairness. The Court examined whether the absence of an appeal from judgments under Article 184(3) amounted to a denial of due process and concluded that the Constitution does not provide for an appeal against Supreme Court judgments under Article 184(3), except for a limited review under Article 188. Allowing Parliament to convert review jurisdiction into an appeal would distort the constitutional scheme and create an imbalance in judicial hierarchy. The Court reaffirmed that the Supreme Court’s decisions must be final and binding, as mandated by Article 189​ . Disposition: The Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act, 2023 was declared unconstitutional and struck down in its entirety as being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and violative of the independence of the judiciary​ . Cited Cases: Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 483) Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 923) Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 774) Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324)

Summary: [--Discussion on Section 107, 109 and 44 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001---Avoidance of Double Taxation in view of Double Taxation Treaties---Article 31 of the Vienna Convention 1969.----Review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules 1980 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC]

Summary: ''Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Supreme Court Rules envisage only one review of any judgment pronounced or any order made by the Court. A second review petition, whatever name is given to it including the ?curative review?, is not maintainable under Article 188 of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court Rules.'' ---Issue: The primary issue was the maintainability of a second review petition under the Supreme Court Rules and the Constitution of Pakistan.----Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the second review petition, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that after the disposal of the first review petition, no subsequent review petitions are allowed, as per the Supreme Court Rules.---Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution is subject to the Supreme Court Rules, which explicitly bar subsequent review petitions after the final disposal of the first. The Court also clarified that its jurisdiction to entertain review petitions does not extend to the consideration of second or subsequent review petitions, thereby ensuring the finality of its judgments and preventing endless litigation. Additionally, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah provided a detailed note discussing the constitutional and legal framework surrounding the review jurisdiction and its limits, reinforcing the principle of legal finality and the non-maintainability of second review petitions.

Summary: The petitions sought a review of the Court?s earlier judgment dated July 31, 2009, in Sindh High Court Bar Association vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 789). Despite being barred by 1576 days, the Court heard the petitions in the interest of justice.Background: The review petitions stemmed from General (Retd.) Musharraf's actions on October 12, 1999, and November 3, 2007, including the imposition of a State of Emergency, issuance of the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) 1999, and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, which led to certain judges ceasing to hold office. These actions were initially validated with conditions in Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan (PLD 2000 SC 869). However, following events such as the suspension of Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and subsequent legal battles, including the Sindh High Court Bar Association case, challenged the constitutional validity of these actions.Arguments: General (Retd.) Musharraf, through his counsel, argued that the 2009 judgment was void as it was per incuriam (issued without regard to the law or facts), and violated principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem (no person shall be condemned unheard). The petitions also raised concerns about alleged bias of then-Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry against General (Retd.) Musharraf, arguing that he acted as a judge in his own cause, thereby questioning the objectivity of the judgment under review.Court?s Analysis and Decision: The Court meticulously examined the submissions and principles of review jurisdiction. It concluded that there was no new significant matter or evidence that could justify a review under Article 188 of the Constitution and Supreme Court Rules. The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the pendency of the case and the judgment and had ample opportunity to challenge it in time. Regarding the bias argument, the Court found no evidence of any actual bias or conflict of interest that would disqualify the then-Chief Justice from hearing the case. It was observed that the actions taken by General (Retd.) Musharraf were of national and constitutional importance, and thus, the bench, including the then-Chief Justice, was duty-bound to adjudicate the matter.The Court dismissed the review petitions, upholding its earlier judgment that declared General (Retd.) Musharraf's actions, including the Proclamation of Emergency and other related orders, unconstitutional and void ab initio.

Summary: ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the delay of three days in filing the review petition should be condoned. ----- 2) Whether the constitution of the present Bench and procedural objections raised by PTI's counsel were valid. ----- 3) Whether the request to meet Imran Khan, PTI's chairman, currently in Adiala Jail, should be allowed. ----- 4) Whether the review petition was filed prematurely, given that it was submitted before the release of the detailed reasoning of the majority judgment. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court condoned the three-day delay in filing the review petition, stating that the review was filed before the detailed reasoning of the majority judgment was issued. Without the detailed reasoning, SCBAP could not file a proper review petition. The objections raised by PTI’s counsel regarding the constitution of the Bench and the timing of the review petition were overruled. The Court noted that the review petition was filed in a matter of great constitutional importance, not one affecting personal rights, and it was not filed out of turn. The Court allowed PTI's counsel to meet with Imran Khan in Adiala Jail and directed the Additional Attorney-General to ensure the meeting was facilitated. The Court rejected PTI’s counsel's objections to the constitution of the Bench and maintained that every effort was made to reconstitute the Bench as per the law when the original Judge, Justice Munib Akhtar, was unable to participate. The petition was adjourned to continue its hearing on 3 October 2024. ----- Citations/Precedents: Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 241): Required judgments to be inscribed with the date of writing, signing, and pronouncement. Order XXVI, rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980: Prescribed a 30-day period for filing review petitions. Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan: Provides the constitutional right to seek a review of any Supreme Court judgment. Order XXVI, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules: Allows review petitions to be filed for errors apparent on the record or other sufficient reasons. Order XXVI, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules: Requires a review petition to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment. Order XXVI, rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules: Stipulates that a review petition should, as far as practicable, be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment. Raja Amer Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2024 Supreme Court 114): Addressed the validity of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

Summary: Scope of review --- Background: This civil review petition challenges the Supreme Court's decision dated August 8, 2023, in Civil Petition No. 2166-L/2023. Ahmad Sikander was issued notices under Sections 122(9) and 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for allegedly concealing a foreign bank account in the UK, which was not disclosed in his wealth statement. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming all relevant documents, including foreign income and bank statements, were submitted and available on the e-Portal of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). However, the tax authorities dismissed his explanations, leading to his conviction for tax evasion. The case moved through various appellate stages, with the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court dismissing his appeals. Sikander subsequently filed a review petition arguing that the courts erred by ignoring the availability of documents on the e-Portal. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the documents Sikander submitted on the FBR e-Portal were considered in his defense. ---2) Whether the petitioner can raise new arguments or evidence at the review stage. ---3) Whether the court’s initial ruling overlooked any significant facts or errors on the face of the record. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Review Jurisdiction and Scope: The majority of the Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, allowed the review petition. The Court noted that Sikander’s documents were available on the FBR e-Portal and were improperly considered as fresh evidence by the lower courts. The review petition was accepted to allow a re-hearing of the case, citing that this oversight raises sufficient questions of law and facts, and providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present his case serves the interest of justice. ---- Judgment Overturned: The majority opinion recalled the August 8, 2023 decision, restoring Civil Petition No. 2166-L/2023 to its original number and scheduling a fresh hearing after Eid-ul-Fitr 2024. ---- Dissenting Opinion: Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi dissented, arguing that the scope of review is limited under Article 188 of the Constitution and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He emphasized that new arguments cannot be introduced at the review stage and that re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted. He concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, thus the review petition should be dismissed. ---- Citations/Precedents: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (Order XXVI and Order XLVII) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XLVII) Ghulam Murtaza vs. Abdul Salam Shah (2010 SCMR 1883) Commissioner Inland Revenue vs. MSC Switzerland Geneva (C.R.P. 432-K/2022) Shamsher Ahmad vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1931) State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008 SCC 612) Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997 SCC 715)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: ----Art. 188---Review Petition---Condonation of delay---Scope and principles---Bar of limitation in review petitions---Unexplained delay---Effect--- The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 04 & 05/2018 seeking condonation of delay in filing a review petition against the judgment dated 26.01.2018. The delay amounted to one month and twenty-one days. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan examined the reasons provided for the delay and found them neither plausible nor reasonable. It was held that even one day of unexplained delay in a review petition cannot be condoned, as per established legal principles. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the office objections were sustained. ----Cited Cases: 1990 SCMR 1377 1991 SCMR 1022 1998 SCMR 292 1998 SCMR 1087 2016 GBLR 12 2016 GBLR 244 (b) Review Jurisdiction: ----Scope of review---Illegality and infirmity in judgment---Burden on petitioner---Failure to establish grounds for review---Effect--- The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or material infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 26.01.2018. The court observed that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be invoked in the absence of a clear and apparent error or illegality. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of the judgment does not justify interference under review jurisdiction. ----Disposition: The review petition was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit.