• PTI didn’t request reserved seats at any judicial forum: SC
• Top court on June 27 had deprived PTI of reserved seats.
• Apex court accepted review pleas by majority 7-3.
  

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that relief could not be extended to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) by invoking the power of complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution.

A ten-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, issued the detailed ruling. 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 Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, The News reported.

The apex court on June 27 had deprived the PTI of reserved seats after setting aside last year’s verdict that had declared the party was entitled to reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and provincial assemblies. 

The court, by a majority of 7-3, had accepted the review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against the reserved seats verdict delivered last year on July 12.

 The majority judges, including Justice Aminuddin, Justice Hilali, Justice Afghan, Justice Hassan, Justice Kakar, Justice Farooq and Justice Najafi, allowed all the civil review petitions.

“Relief could not have been granted to PTI by invoking the power of complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution,” said a 40-page detailed judgment.

The court declared that Article 187 could not have been invoked to grant relief to the PTI, adding that the facts and circumstances of the case did not require the application of the Article.

“The exercise of authority purportedly under Article 187 of the Constitution to grant relief to a party which was not before the court, to remove from office MNAs and MPAs who had been declared elected and who were not before the court and to issue declarations and directives which were outside the scope of the statutory or constitutional authority of this court was not warranted,” the detailed judgment held.

The court declared that the majority judgment, being in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the court and being contrary to the statutory and constitutional provisions identified, suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record which float on the surface.

“It, therefore, has to be set aside,” the detailed judgment held. The court noted that relief was granted using Article 187, which was beyond the Constitution, adding that the majority judgment was against the record and the Constitution.

The detailed judgment noted that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and seven other judges had given the majority decision in favour of PTI being awarded the reserved seats.

“All judges agreed that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) was not entitled to the reserved seats,” the detailed verdict held, adding that the court had unanimously dismissed both appeals of the SIC. The court further noted that the SIC did not file any petition against the dismissal of its appeals.

“SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqi stated: ‘In this loss, there is my victory’,” the verdict mentioned. The detailed verdict held that the Supreme Court can indeed issue directives to ensure complete justice, but the use of Article 187 must be based on facts and law.

The verdict further noted that the PTI did not request reserved seats at any judicial forum, adding that the PTI was not a party before the ECP or the Peshawar High Court.

Similarly, the court held that the PTI did not challenge the PHC decision in the Supreme Court, adding that its application in the apex court was only for legal assistance.

“Due to these reasons, relief under Article 187 could not be granted to the PTI,” the verdict held.

Regarding the SIC, the court noted that the central judgment unanimously dismissed the appeals, stating they were not entitled to the seats.

“In the PTI case, it was not a party at any forum, so the relief granted in the central decision cannot stand,” the verdict ruled.

The detailed verdict noted that the Supreme Court never barred the PTI from contesting elections, adding that none of the 80 independent candidates claimed to be PTI candidates or entitled to reserved seats.

“Independently elected candidates who had freely and voluntarily joined the SIC within 3 days as required by the Constitution were no longer to remain parliamentary members of the SIC and their membership was transferred to the PTI without ascertaining their opinion and without any request or claim by them or by the PTI or SIC,” the judgment noted.

Any person whose name the PTI leadership chose to include in the list of candidates for reserved seats was to be returned elected in proportion to the general seats allegedly secured by it. The electorate 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 gift by the party leadership to the persons it liked as a consequence of the court orders, it said, adding: “The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to interpret the statutes and the Constitution. Insofar as it remains within those limits its authority is both considerable and absolute. It cannot be called into question by any other department of government or even by another constitutional institution, be it the Legislature or the Executive. 

The authority to interpret the law and the Constitution does not, however, confer on the courts the authority to rewrite the Constitution or the law. The will of the legislature and the will of the Constitution-makers delegated as it is by the people has to be respected and given effect to. 

It cannot be negated or usurped by the judiciary by scribing artificial meanings to the clear language of the Constitution or by derogating from the plain meaning of its words. Any Court or judge, including the Supreme Court and its judges, has no jurisdiction to read their personal likes and dislikes into the Constitution or to ignore or circumvent its commands.”