ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday observed that by enacting the Supreme Court (Review of Judgements and Orders) Act 2023, the government had equated the right toappeal with the review against court orders, thus obliterating the distinction created by the Constitution.

The observation came during the hearing by a three-judgeSCbenchofaset of challenges to the law as well as Election Commission of Pakistan`s (ECP) review against the April 4 verdict fixing May 14 as the date for holding elections to the Punjab Assembly.

At the outset of the hearing, the CJP observed that the apex court would like to know the depth of the petitions moved to challenge the law, though the review peti-tion will remain pending during the hearing of the pleas.

The court, however, turned down a request for staying the operation of the law like it did earlier while taking up the case against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, since both laws have overlapping features.

`You are assuming that we would like to stay the law one after another; thisisnot possible,` the CJP observed while pointing towards petitioners Ghulam Mohiuddin and Zaman Khan Vardag, who were attending the pro-ceedings from Karachi and Lahore, respectively, via video link.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan observed that the effect of both the laws was that they had provided an appeal under the garb of the review and if the appeal was decided, a further appeal in the name of the review was still available.

Thejudgeaskedthecounsel to convince the court what intent and purpose were in the minds of the framers of the Constitution and the trappings of the review to give the case a finality and what prevented the legislators from providing a second appeal to the judgements of the apex court.

Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, representing PTI Secretary General Omar Ayub Khan, argued that the law was against the constitution, adding that in fact the government had actually amended Article 188 that deals with the review jurisdiction through a simple law when it required a consti-tutional amendment.

They have provided a new court within the Supreme Court and that too through an ordinary law, he said.

Earlier, Ghulam Mohiuddin and Zaman Khan Vardag pleaded before the courtthat since the vires of the two laws were almost the same, the same eight-judge SC bench, which was hearing the practice and procedure act, should hear the matter.

The court will talce up the case again on Wednesday.