The previous government had filed a curative review to move the Supreme Court to re-visit its judgment passed in Review Jurisdiction wherein the review was allowed. The current Government filed an application to withdraw the said curative review which the Chief Justice allowed after hearing the case in chamber. The order of the CJP in chamber holds that filling a curative review by a party or moving the Court to revisit what it has already visited in Review is alien to our Constitution and legal system. No provision of the Constitution nor any law empowers the Court to revisit it judgment passed in Review Jurisdiction on the plea of a party.
However, the Court has clarified that it does not mean that the Court on its own motion is also barred to revisit its earlier judgment passed in review. There is no provision in the Constitution which says that the Court cannot revisit its views pronounced earlier, if they are incorrect and not inconsonance with the Constitution and the law. Similarly, the Court is bound to set the law straight and do complete justice. It is also required to do final but correct interpretation of law as an ultimate body and arbiter of justice in the judicial hierarchy.
Hence, the CJP held that the Court on its own motion can revisit its Review Judgment to correct the earlier incorrect view of the Court but not on the application of a party. The only difference is the mode and manner of invocation of the curative review jurisdiction of the Court. It can only be invoked Suo Moto by the Court itself but it cannot be invoked by party, be that a government or a private person.
Finally, the CJP wrote that since the matter in hand neither involves question of public importance nor it was filed in the public interest litigation where the Court can seize of the matter even if the application is withdrawn, hence, the application is allowed to withdraw the curative review.
c.m.a._2012_2023_10042023
