ISLAMABAD: In an attempt to reverse the decisions from January 13 and October 21 that upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to deny the party its “bat” emblem, PTI filed a curative appeal with the Supreme Court on Tuesday as a last resort after losing the election symbol.
A final remedy that enables the SC to reexamine a rejected review petition is the curative petition.
According to the 32-page petition, which was filed by Advocate Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, the current petition is founded on the natural justice concept and was made necessary by the circumstances that arose during the hearing.
In addition, the appeal stated that the verdict is per incuriam and not a judgment at all, citing the Mubarak Ahmed Sani case from August 22, in which the Supreme Court had changed its previous ruling.
The 32-page petition contends that the judgment was rendered per incuriam.
The petition contends that the ruling was per incuriam, which means that it was rendered without knowledge of the provisions of a statute or regulation that had legal force. A decision rendered per incuriam may not be legally binding and may be regarded as an error.
The petition also cited the Mubarak Ahmed Sani case from August 22, in which the Supreme Court changed its prior ruling and established a precedent for going back and reviewing past rulings.
The Supreme Court, presided over by former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, denied PTI’s request on October 21 to reexamine the Jan. 13 ruling in the bat symbol matter.
The review petition was denied because the petitioner failed to identify any illegality or significant error in the ruling.
Senior attorney Hamid Khan had argued before the Supreme Court throughout the hearing that he did not want to speak in front of a bench that was led by someone who “harbors bias against PTI.”
According to the petitioner, the rulings from January 13 and October 21 were both null and void in legal terms. The curative review claims that by attempting to draw the SC’s attention to two of its own rulings, the petition has brought up issues of public significance regarding fundamental rights and the interpretation of the laws pertaining to the electoral rights of the people who were real sovereigns.
PTI filed a curative review petition against Justice Isa, who had prevailed in a review petition case, before the Supreme Court on May 26, 2021. The majority ruling in favor of Justice Isa was then challenged in the curative review petition.
On July 21, 2023, former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial denied in chambers the PTI’s request for a curative review against Justice Isa. Meanwhile, in his supplementary note, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said that a second review, also known as a curative review or whatever its name, was not maintainable under Article 188 because this provision only allows for the one-time exercise of this jurisdiction, whether on a review petition or suo motu in relation to any of its rulings.
The new curative petition now argues that the SC’s October 21 ruling was essentially an ex-parte order because no substantive hearing was held in response to the objections made against former CJP Qazi Faez Isa. As a result, it would be in the interests of justice to set aside the ruling and reschedule the review petition.
According to the curative review, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, who were on the bench when the review petition was heard, signed orders that were allegedly blatantly biased and were issued by the then-CJP. As a result, they were not eligible to hear the current petition.
