In a strongly-worded judgment issued on Friday, the Supreme Court of Pakistan struck down the Review of Judgement bill passed by the parliament, labeling it ‘repugnant to and ultra vires the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’.

The 87-page judgement consistes of two parts. The first 51 pages form the actual judgement written by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and 29 pages of an additional note by Justice Muneeb Akhtar.

The judgement not only struck down the law but also added that the government was not ‘competent’ to legislate in the matter in the way it had done.

However, the strongest wording used in the judgement is in the discussion of Section 7 of the law that allows it to override all other laws.

The section said that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules orregulations for the time being in force or judgment of any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court, the provisions of the 2023 Act will prevail.”

Discussing section 7, the judgement added that it amounded to a ‘classic judicial ouster’. It adds that the parliament has the right to make laws which the judiciary interprets.

“No law that is found to offend any provision of the Constitution including the fundamental rights enshrined in the 1973 Constitution can be saved or protected by way of an ouster clause.”

The judgement adds that the court is aware that caution must be exercised in striking down laws and laws should not be struck down unless no alternate interpretation is available. However, it adds taht even with its cautious attitude, the review bill was found to be against the constitution.

“However, despite our earnest effort to harmonize the Act with the provisions of theConstitution, we have concluded that 2023 Act is so patently, manifestly and irretrievably in conflict with and violative of various Articles of the 1973 Constitution that it is not possible to harmonize the two in any manner whatsoever.”

The judgement also speaks strongly against the government’s justificiation of enlarging the court’s jurisdiction. The judgement calls the legislation an ‘intrusion’ into the court’s affairs.

“… placing reliance on Entry 55 under the garb of “enlargement of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” is indisputably unconstitutional and an intrusion in the independence of the judiciary… “

The judgement adds that a ‘plain reading’ of section 2 of the law shows that it virtually amounts to amending article 188 by turning a review under the article to an appeal under article 185.

The judgement says that the heart of the law is section 2, which speaks of enlargement of jurisdiction, and declares that section to be ultra vires, leading the whole law to be considered against the constitution.