Islamabad, Aug 11 (PTI) Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday struck down a recently enacted law modifying the review process of its judgements, a major ruling that will diminish the chances of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's bid to challenge his lifetime disqualification from holding any public office.

A three-member bench of the apex court led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar unanimously ruled that the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023 was "unconstitutional".

Also Read | Nigeria Violence: Indian Government Advises Indian Nationals To Leave West African Nation As Soon as Possible.

The 87-page order said: "Parliament cannot legislate regarding any matter relating to jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court."

Moreover, the bench in its order contended that "any legislation ... under the garb of "enlargement of [the] jurisdiction of the Supreme Court", is indisputably an intrusion in the independence of the judiciary."

Also Read | China Detains Military Group Worker Suspected of Spying for CIA in Exchange for Large Sums of Money.

Any attempt by way of ordinary legislation to interfere in the scope of the court's powers and jurisdiction, including its review jurisdiction, would constitute a wrong and erroneous reading and interpretation of the Constitution, the order states.

"There can be no two opinions that the power to interpret the Constitution vests exclusively with the Supreme Court of Pakistan," the apex court ruled.

It was said that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, 73, could be a beneficiary as he was disqualified by the Supreme Court in 2017.

Nawaz Sharif, the elder brother of outgoing Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, was disqualified by a five-member bench of the apex court but he couldn't file an appeal as there was no law to challenge the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In 2018, he became ineligible to hold public office for life after a Supreme Court verdict.

The former premier has been living in London since November 2019 for medical treatment after a Pakistani court allowed him a four-week reprieve.

Nawaz Sharif, who has served as the prime minister of Pakistan for three non-consecutive terms, was serving a seven-year sentence in the Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore in the Al-Azizia corruption case before he left for London.

Shehbaz Sharif has already said Nawaz Sharif will be Pakistan's prime minister again if their party wins the general election later this year.

The Supreme Court in its detailed verdict on Friday stated that the law was “repugnant to and ultra vires the Constitution” while being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.

“It is accordingly struck down as null and void and of no legal effect,” the order said.

Reacting to the apex court striking down the law, former law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told Geo News that the verdict was unfortunate.

“It is not a good tradition if courts will repeatedly interfere in Parliament's workings and give verdicts that impair its independence,” he said.

When asked about the fate of Nawaz Sharif after the law was declared null and void, he said that the verdict would have no impact on the cases of disqualification of the supreme leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party.

Asked if the verdict could delay Nawaz Sharif's expected return to the country from London, Tarar said, “Not at all.”

He then referred to an amendment made to the Elections Act, which he said was “sort of a unanimous legislation”. The amendment limited disqualification of lawmakers to five years with retrospective effect.

Recalling that the bill for amending the Elections Act was passed by the Senate amid an uproar, he insisted that the law was not “person-specific — just for mian Nawaz Sharif sahib — but for the benefit of many others so that justice can be served”.

“So this [verdict] has no impact relating to the cases of Nawaz Sharif sahib,” Tarar said.

On June 19 after six hearings, the bench had reserved its verdict.

The apex court in its verdict also said the law was an effort to interfere in the scope of its powers and jurisdiction of ordinary legislation which could only be done through an amendment in the constitution.

It stated that law instead of enlarging the review jurisdiction created a new appellate jurisdiction which has no constitutional basis, impacting the independence of the judiciary, and any such law would by its nature and from its very inception, be “unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect”.

Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar wrote an additional note, rejecting the notion that the review was like an appeal.

“A review is not an appeal. Indeed, it is quite different and distinct from it. So says conventional wisdom,” he said.

Justice Akhtar then recalled the history of review and appellate jurisdictions, beginning with the Government of India Act 1935, which he said “became the first Constitution for both, the dominions of Pakistan and India”.

The law was introduced when tension between the executive and judiciary was running high due to differences over the holding of elections in the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provinces.

As Chief Justice Bandial was taking action through suo motu actions, the government hurriedly passed a law to dilute his discretionary powers to take suo motu actions and also constitute panels of judges to proceed on such matters.

The law also enlarged the review against the decisions by the court under its suo motu jurisdiction and allowed all affectees of such decisions to file appeals.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)