A critical analysis of the review petitions decided by the supreme court of Pakistan

Abstract

The concept of a ‘review’ refers to a legally sanctioned process wherein a court revisits its own judgment. This practice is globally prevalent and has sparked diverse debates, featuring arguments both for and against the exercise of review by courts. The doctrine of review is also incorporated in the legal and constitutional framework of Pakistan. The Supreme Court has the power, using Article 188 of the constitution, to review its past decisions. However, the exercise of this power has been marred by substantial criticism, attributed to inconsistencies in decisions, protracted delays, case pendency, and alleged politicization. The primary question guiding this study was to unravel the reasons behind the criticisms directed at the exercise of review by the Supreme Court and to ascertain the grounds of review. The study employed doctrinal research methodology to analyze the review petitions decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan from 2016 to 2023 and found significant anomalies, deviations from established norms, and arbitrariness, embedding uncertainty in the jurisprudential landscape. To alleviate these disparities and revitalize the efficacy of the review process, comprehensive reforms including the formulation of explicit review criteria, enactment of responsive legislation, and sustained engagement with stakeholders, are imperative.