In his judgement, Supreme Court of Pakistan Chief Justice Bandial noted that the appellants had sought a curative review against a 6-4 verdict of the Supreme Court that allowed Justice Isa and other petitioners to seek a review in a case over his alleged corruption.
Moreover, he noted that the appellants had filed on March 31, 2023, to withdraw the applications against Justice Isa.
CJP Bandial noted that the provision for a curative review does not exist in Pakistani jurisprudence and that these applications were filed based on a case decided in the Supreme Court of India, which recognised the court's right to "re-consider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power."
However, CJP Bandial noted, "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alien to the laws and jurisprudence of Pakistan, and therefore these petitions being not maintainable, are liable to be withdrawn."
He further noted that once a review petition has been decided, a second review petition cannot be filed.
Curiously, CJP Bandial noted that the court has, in the past, voluntarily passed motions to correct its decisions wherein wrong principles of the law was laid down.
"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 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."
CJP Bandial also made the distinction between a curative review and a suo moto abundantly clear while recognising that both serve the purpose of correcting a fundamental error in a previous judgement or order.
The key difference, he noted, was in the mode and manner they are invoked.
"Curative review must be invoked by a party," he wrote in the 13-page order.
On the other hand, a suo motu review can only be invoked by the court at its discretion, including on the information received from an aggrieved or concerned party, he said.
"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."
CJP Bandial noted that in the case of Justice Isa, no member of the original bench that delivered the judgment in question (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 (lack of due regard to the law or the facts).
In the absence of any of these points and the jurisprudence, CJP Bandial noted that the curative review petitions were not maintainable.
However, he noted that all appellants retain their right under the law to withdraw applications.
"The appellants retain the unconditional right to withdraw their curative review petitions filed against the Subject Judgment."
He added that this is without prejudice to the fact 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 cognisable information."