Islamabad:
The Pakistan-Nawaz Muslim League (PML-N) presented additional written arguments in the Supreme Court before the hearing on its request for review against the verdict of July 12 with respect to the reserved seats.
Filed through the main lawyer Haris Azmat, the additional presentations argue that the use of article 187 in the July 12 judgment was inconsistent with the established judicial principles.
The party argued that the SC had exercised its powers under article 187 in a way that deviated from the established legal norms.
“The reasoning detailed in paragraph No. 117, while giving relief to the PTI, has been erroneously based on article 187 of the Constitution. These findings are against the established jurisprudence and, therefore, it is likely to be reviewed,” he said.
The appeal also declared that the observations mentioned above were made without citing any trial or past precedent of the SC to support them, which goes against their established jurisprudence.
The sentence also overlooked the fact that it was an appeal under article 185 (3) of the Constitution, challenging a judgment of the Superior Court of Peshawar, not a petition for public interest under article 184 (3).
In addition, the petitioner was not given any opportunity or right to be heard on the issue of whether PTI reserved seats could be granted, which was not made a part before the SC or in the previous procedures.
The appeal also argued that the detailed reasoning, when making the previous observations, ignored the established jurisprudence of the SC, particularly with respect to the limitations in the powers of the Court under article 187 of the Constitution.
He cited, for example, a bank sentence of ten members of the SC in Judge Qazi Faez Faez Isa and another VS President of Pakistan, where the majority opinion in paragraph n. ° 34 affirmed that no person, authority, court or court, who exercises executive or court powers, can act against any person in the violation of the law.
This principle emphasized the appeal, also applies to SC when exercising its judicial authority, even under article 187 (1) of the Constitution.
Although article 187 allows the Court to approve any order necessary to complete justice between the parties, it cannot issue any order that contradicts fundamental rights, constitutional provisions or applicable legal law.
It was emphasized that the conclusions extracted in paragraph n. ° 117 of the detailed judgment overlooked this consistent legal position. The powers under article 187 can only be used between the parties before the Court and strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the Law.
It was content that these powers cannot be invoked to reopen issues that have already been resolved or to address problems that are not directly under consideration. The provision does not confer unlimited or without control authority.
The presentation emphasized that article 187 does not grant the unlimited powers of the court, and indicates that the points on which the sentence was never part of the Court Registry. He also said that none of the 80 SIC members appeared personally before the court.
He recalled that in his detailed trial of eight judges, the court had emphasized that PTI’s relief in this case is derived from the court’s concern for protecting the right to the voting of the electorate, which is guaranteed in articles 17 (2) and 19 of the Constitution.
“The procedural formality of accepting PTI’s application and then granting relief does not have much weight when the court’s concern is the protection of the people’s vote right (the electorate) guaranteed under articles 17 (2) and 19 of the Constitution, rather than the right of any political party, either if it is sic or PTI or any other part, the trial had annulled.
However, the additional appeal of the PML-N argued that the previous findings were “so shocking and surprising that even some of the other members of the bank recorded their separate reasoning on it”, citing the trial written by Judge Amin UD Din Khan and Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
It is important to note that the PML-N argued that SIC and PTI cannot be treated as the political entity itself.
He urged the Apex court to reconsider and review his ruling on July 12.
The case will be heard today (Thursday) by a largest constitutional bank of 11 members of the Supreme Court, headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan.
