ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that it can endorse through a short order any judgement of a court below by adopting its reasoning if the apex court is satisfied with its conclusions and considers that the challenge before it does not call for any interference.
“In such a case re-tracing the same path travelled by the court below appears to be an unnecessary exercise and a waste of public time — a time which can be allocated to other cases where the decisions of the courts below have been overturned or modified,” observed Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
Justice Shah was heading a two-judge SC bench, which had taken up a case to review the Aug 1, 2019 decision of the Supreme Court.
In a two-page order, Justice Shah also noted that in the review petition one of the grounds was that Aug 1, 2019 order of the apex court was without any reason.
In its 2019 order, the Supreme Court had held that it had heard the counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the impugned judgement of the high court, the record of the case and the law on the subject. “We have not been able to take any exception to the reasoning of the impugned judgement and are of the view that it does not warrant any interference.”
Justice Mansoor says courts across the world are moving on to efficient time, case management techniques
Though the Supreme Court rejected the petition with an observation that no ground for review of the Aug 1, 2019 was made out, it emphasised that a concise and simple order can suffice if no reversible error in the judgement under review could be found.
In other words, according to Justice Shah, if the SC has to reverse or modify the judgement of the court below, the reasons for the reversal or modification must be given, otherwise it can simply endorse the judgement of the courts below.
“It is simple a creative way forward that spares the court from writing opinions where a mere adoption of a well-reasoned judgement of the court below through a short order serves the purpose adequately,” the SC judge observed.
“Nothing is cast in stone,” Justice Shah remarked, adding that old practices evolved with changing times.
Burgeoning population and the corresponding rapid increase in litigation require solutions, Justice Shah emphasised, adding that courts all over the world had moved on to efficient time and case management techniques.
He observed that if the Supreme Court, after having examined the judgement challenged before it, was satisfied with its reasoning and conclusions and was of the view that it did not call for any interference, the apex court could simply endorse the impugned judgement and adopt the reasoning of the court below.
Consequently, Justice Shah observed that the ground for review in the present case was absolutely misconceived.
