- PTI did not request reserved seats in any judicial forum: SC
- The Top Court on June 27 had deprived PTI of reserved seats.
- Apex Court accepted the replicas of revision by the majority 7-3.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that relief could not extend to Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) invoking the power of complete justice under article 187 of the Constitution.
A ten -member bank, headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan, issued the detailed ruling. The Bank also included Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Judge Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Musarrat Hilali, Judge Naeem Akhter Afghan, Judge Shahid Bilal Hassan, Judge Muhamad Hashim Khan Kakar, Judge Aamer Faooq and Judge Ali Baqar Najafi Najafi, Najafi, Najafi, The news reported.
On June 27, the Apex court had deprived the PTI of the reserved seats after leaving aside the verdict of last year that had declared that the party was entitled to seats reserved for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.
The Court, by the majority of 7-3, had accepted the review requests presented by the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP), the Pakistan Nawaz Muslim League (PMLN) and the parliamentarians of the Party of the Peoples of Pakistan (PPPP) against the verdict of the reserved seats delivered last year on July 12.
The majority judges, including Judge Aminuddin, Judge Hilali, the Afghan Judge, Judge Hassan, Judge Kakar, Judge Farooq and Judge Najafi, allowed all the requests of civil review.
“It could not have granted relief to PTI invoking the power of complete justice under article 187 of the Constitution,” said a detailed sentence of 40 pages.
The Court declared that article 187 could not have been invoked to grant relief to the PTI, and added that the facts and circumstances of the case did not require the application of the article.
“The exercise of the authority allegedly under article 187 of the Constitution to grant relief to a part that was not before the Court, to eliminate from the MNA and MPA of the position that had been declared elected and that were not before the Court and issue statements and directives that were beyond the reach of the statutory or constitutional authority of this Court was not guaranteed,” the detailed trial said.
The Court declared that the majority judgment, which exceeds the jurisdiction acquired in court and is contrary to the identified legal and constitutional provisions, suffers apparent errors in the face of the registry that float on the surface.
“Therefore, it must be reserved,” said the detailed trial. The court indicated that relief was granted using article 187, which was beyond the Constitution, adding that the majority judgment was against registration and the Constitution.
The detailed trial said that Judge Mansoor Ali Shah and seven other judges had made the majority decision in favor of receiving the reserved seats.
“All the judges agreed that the Sunita Ittehad (sic) council had no right to reserved seats,” said the detailed verdict, adding that the court had unanimously dismissed both SIC appeals. The court also indicated that the SIC did not present any request against the dismissal of its appeals.
“Sic Faisal Siddiqi’s lawyer declared:” In this loss, there is my victory, “said the verdict. The detailed verdict said that the Supreme Court can issue directives to guarantee complete justice, but the use of article 187 must be based on facts and laws.
The verdict also pointed out that the PTI did not request reserved seats in any judicial forum, and added that the PTI was not part before the ECP or the Superior Court of Peshawar.
Similarly, the court argued that the PTI did not challenge PHC’s decision in the Supreme Court, adding that his 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,” said the verdict.
With respect to the SIC, the court indicated that the central judgment unanimously dismissed the appeals, stating that they had no right to seats.
“In the PTI case, it was not a part in any forum, so the relief granted in the central decision cannot endure,” the verdict ruled.
The detailed verdict said that the Supreme Court never prohibited the PTI from playing elections, adding that none of the 80 independent candidates claimed to be PTI candidates or entitled to reserved seats.
“The candidates chosen independently that had joined pound and voluntarily in the sic within 3 days, as required by the Constitution, should no longer be parliamentary members of the SIC and its membership was transferred to the PTI without determining its opinion and without any request or claim for the PTI or sic,” the trial said.
Any person whose name the leadership of PTI decided to include in the list of candidates for reserved seats should be returned chosen in proportion to the general seats supposedly assured by him. The electorate had never had the opportunity to consider this list or cast votes in support of it or against.
People were deprived of the mandate of choosing candidates for reserved seats, undoubtedly indirectly, and the matter was now placed in the hands of and the leadership of the party to the persons who liked them as a consequence of judicial orders, according to: “The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to interpret the statutes and the Constitution. For any other government department or even by another constitutional institution, whether the legislature or the executive.
However, the authority to interpret the law and the Constitution does not confer the Courts to the authority to rewrite the Constitution or the Law. The will of the Legislature and the will of the manufacturers of the Constitution delegates as it is by the people must be respected and given.
The Judicial Power cannot deny or usuritize writing artificial meanings to the clear language of the Constitution or repeal the simple meaning of their words. Any court or judge, including the Supreme Court and its judges, has no jurisdiction to read their personal and dislikes of the Constitution or to ignore or avoid their commands. “
