- PTI did not request reserved seats on any legal forum: sc
- The top court on June 27 had deprived PTI reserved seats.
- Apex Court accepted review pleas with majority 7-3.
The Supreme Court issued on Thursday that relief could not be expanded to Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) by invoking the power of complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution.
A bench with ten members, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, made the detailed decision. The bench also included justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Aameroqe and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, Justice, The news reported.
The Apex Court on June 27 had deprived PTI reserved seats after launching last year’s judgment, which had declared that the party was entitled to reserved seats for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.
With a majority of 7-3, the Court had accepted the review of petitions filed by the Election Commission in Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party parliamentarians (PPPP) against the reserved seats laid out last year on July 12.
Majority judges, including justice Aminuddin, Justice Hilali, Justice Afghan, Justice Hassan, Justice Kakar, Justice Farooq and Justice Najafi, allowed all the civil petitions.
“There could not have been relief to PTI by invoking the power of complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution,” a detailed sentence of 40 pages said.
The court stated that Article 187 could not have been invoked to give PTI’s relief, adding that the facts and circumstances of the case did not require the use of the article.
“Exercise of authority alleged in accordance with Article 187 of the Constitution to provide relief to a party not to the court, to remove from the office and MPAs that had been declared elected, which were not before the court and to make declarations and directives beyond the extent of the statutory or constitutional authority for this court was not entitled,” the detailed judgment.
The court stated that the majority of the judgment exceeding the jurisdiction assigned to the court and was in violation of the statutory and constitutional provisions that are identified suffer from errors that are clear on the face of the post flowing on the surface.
“It must therefore be set aside,” the detailed judgment is held. The court noted that relief was given by the help of Article 187, which was outside the Constitution, adding that the majority decision was against the post and the Constitution.
The detailed judgment noted that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and seven other judges had given the majority decision in favor of PTI being awarded the reserved seats.
“All judges agreed that Sunni Itthad Council (SIC) was not entitled to the reserved seats,” held the detailed judgment, adding that the court had unanimously rejected both SIC’s appeals. The court further noted that SIC did not submit any petition against the dismissal of its appeals.
“Sic -Attorney Faisal Siddiqi said,” In this loss there is my victory, “the verdict mentioned. The detailed judgment found that the Supreme Court can actually issue directives to ensure complete justice, but the use of Article 187 must be based on facts and law.
The verdict also noted that PTI did not request reserved seats on a legal forum, adding that PTI was not a party for ECP or Peshawar High Court.
Similarly, the Court found that the PTI did not contest the PHC decision in the Supreme Court and added that its application in the Point Court was only for legal assistance.
“Due to these reasons, exemption could not be granted under Article 187 to PTI,” the judgment held.
With regard to SIC, the Court noted that the central judgment unanimously rejected the appeals and said they were not entitled to the seats.
“In the PTI case, it was not a party on any forum, so the relief given in the central decision cannot stand,” the verdict gave.
The detailed judgment noted that the Supreme Court never prevented PTI from contesting the election and adding that none of the 80 independent candidates claimed to be PTI candidates or entitled to reserved seats.
“Independently elected candidates who, freely and voluntarily joined SIC within 3 days as required in the Constitution, were no longer to remain parliamentary members of SIC and their membership were transferred to PTI without finding their opinion and without any request or claim from them or of PTI or SIC,” the verdict noted.
Any person whose name the PTI management chose to include on the list of candidates for reserved seats should be returned selected in relation to the general seats allegedly secured by it. The choice had never had an opportunity to consider this list or to cast votes in support of or against it.
The People Were Deprived of the Mandate to Elect Candidates To The Reserved Seats, No Doubt Indirectly, and the Matter Was Now Placed In The Hands Of And Made A Married By The Party Leadership To The Person It Liked As A CONSEQUENCE OF THE COURT ORDERS, IT SAID, ADDING: ” Statutes and the Constitution.
However, the authority to interpret the law and the constitution does not transfer the courts to the authority to rewrite the constitution or law. The will of the legislature and the will of the constitutional producers, which is delegated, as it is by the people, must be respected and effective.
It cannot be neglected or monitored by the judiciary by writing artificial meanings to the clear language of the Constitution or by omitting from the general meaning of its words. Any court or judge, including the Supreme Court and its judges, has no jurisdiction to read their personal likes and dislike in the Constitution or to ignore or bypass its commands. “
