By enlisting Surya, renowned for his wide-ranging appeal and determined commitment, UniScholars aims to strengthen its mission of guiding students through its three comprehensive verticals at every step of their study-abroad journey,” the company said in a press release. “Selection of Suryakumar Yadav as the brand ambassador is a significant move that blends perfectly with the campaign's essence. The 2023 Act constitutes an intrusion in the independence of the judiciary in a manner that cannot be countenanced.UniScholars, an integrated study-abroad platform, is set to launch a campaign titled ‘The Right Door’ with its brand ambassador. Riaz Hanif Rahi, ASC has contended that it is by now a settled doctrine of constitutional law that the judicial branch of the State must be independent of the executive and the legislative branches. In Constitutional Petition No.23/2023, the Jurist Foundation through its Chairperson/CEO Mr. It amounts to providing a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against a final judgement of the Supreme Court which would destroy the concept of finality which is the hallmark of judgments of the Supreme Court, to bring an end to litigation between the parties. Lastly, he contends that finality is attached to the judgements of this Court and the same cannot be reviewed in a manner that is being sought to be done by way of the 2023 Act. Treating the power of review akin to the powers available to the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185 would lead to judicial chaos. There is a clear, explicit and obvious distinction between a review and an appeal in the 1973 Constitution as well as the law, with each jurisdiction having its own parameters, limits and boundaries developed over centuries of jurisprudential evolution, and constitute parts of a clear and unambiguous legal and constitutional framework. He further contends that the 2023 Act is a colourable exercise of legislative power for collateral purposes to do indirectly what cannot be done directly under the 1973 Constitution. Maintains that the 2023 Act, in its present form, envisages that the Supreme Court may sit in appeal over its own judgements since the distinction between review and appellate jurisdiction has been done away with. Zaman Khan Vardag, ASC has contended that in the garb of “enlargement” of the review jurisdiction of this Court, as the stated purpose of the 2023 Act suggests, the legislature has in fact created an appeal against judgements/orders of this Court passed in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) which it could not have done under the current scheme and structure of the 1973 Constitution. In Constitutional Petition No.22/2023, Mr. The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules regulating its practice and procedure under Article 191 which power was exercised in 2010 and that the legislature does not have the competence to amend the said rules and thereby indirectly amend the 1973 Constitution through an Act of Parliament. He further contends that Section 2 of the 2023 Act is hit by the doctrine of “indirect legal effect” and cannot be enforced since the objective behind it cannot be achieved without amendment of various Articles of the 1973 Constitution. The 2023 Act attempts to amalgamate two inherently different jurisdictions of this Court. Ghulam Mohiuddin, ASC has contended that review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the 1973 Constitution is substantially and materially different than the appellate jurisdiction of this Court exercised under Article 185. In Constitutional Petition No.21/2023, Mr. The 2023 Act is attached as an Annex to this judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |