The Supreme Court has declared that the mere dissatisfaction of one party cannot serve as a ground for review of its judgments, emphasising the need to identify a clear error in the original verdict for such petitions to be considered.
The verdict, authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, was issued by a three-member bench comprising Justice Shah himself, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
The bench was hearing review petitions filed by the District Education Officer (Female) and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education Department.
The judgement comes ahead of a scheduled hearing concerning the review of the apex court’s decision on reserved seats, and lays down guiding principles on the scope and limits of review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court Rules.
The court observed that a review is not an opportunity for a losing party to reargue the case or bring up issues already adjudicated.
“A review petition cannot be entertained merely because a different point of view could have been adopted,” the judgment stated, adding that “rejected arguments cannot be reintroduced under the guise of a review.”
The court underscored the necessity of curbing frivolous review petitions, noting the burden they place on an already strained judiciary. “There are over 2.2 million cases pending across the country, including more than 56,000 in the Supreme Court. A significant number of these are review petitions,” the verdict pointed out.
“Fabricated or unmeritorious review petitions must be discouraged to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the justice system.”
The review petitions in question related to a February 29, 2022 decision of the apex court concerning the appointment of primary school teachers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The court had earlier upheld a Peshawar High Court ruling that held domicile certificates as the primary evidence of residence, stating that a National Identity Card alone was not sufficient to prove local residency for recruitment purposes.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education Department had denied appointments to several candidates — including Sonia Begum, Shakeela Chaman, Saira Amin, Syed Amjad Rauf Shah, Raz Muhammad, and Mehak Sajawal — citing discrepancies between their domiciles and the addresses listed on their CNICs.
Following the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the High Court’s stance, the applicants sought a review, which has now been dismissed through this latest ruling.
