- PTI did not ask for seats reserved for any judicial forum: SC
- On June 27, the high -level court had deprived of reserved seats.
- Apex Court accepted the revision pleas by the majority 7-3.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the reparation could not be extended to Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf (PTI) by invoking the power of the justice complete under article 187 of the Constitution.
A bench of ten members, led by Judge Amicin Khan, made the decision detailed. The bench also included judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, judge Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Musarrat Hilali, Judge Naeem Akhter Afghan, judge Shahid Bilal Hassan, judge Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, judge Aamer Farooq and judge Ali Baqar, The news reported.
On June 27, the Supreme Court had deprived the PTI of the reserved seats after having canceled last year’s verdict which said that the party was entitled to seats reserved for women and minorities in national and provincial assemblies.
The court, by a majority of 7-3, had accepted the revision requests filed by the electoral commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Muslim League of Pakistan Nawaz (PMLN) and the parliamentarian of the Parliament of the Peoples of Pakistan (PPPP) against the verdict of the reserved seats delivered last year on July 12.
The majority judges, including judge Amicin, judge Hilali, Afghan judge, judge Hassan, judge Kakar, judge Farooq and judge Najafi, granted all civilian exams.
“The compensation could not be granted to PTI by invoking the power of justice complete under article 187 of the Constitution,” said a detailed judgment of 40 pages.
The court declared that article 187 could not have been invoked to grant reparation to the PTI, adding that the facts and circumstances of the case did not require the request for the article.
“The exercise of the authority allegedly under article 187 of the Constitution to give compensation to a party which was not before the court, to withdraw from office departures and AMPs which had been declared elected and which were not before the court and to publish declarations and directives which were outside the scope of the statutory judgment or the constitutional authority of this Court was not justified”, the detailed judgment held.
The court declared that the majority judgment, going beyond the jurisdiction leaving the court and contrary to the statutory and constitutional provisions identified, suffers from exposed errors in the face of the file which floated on the surface.
“It must therefore be put aside,” said the judgment detailed. The court noted that a compensation had been granted using article 187, which exceeded the Constitution, adding that the majority judgment was contrary to the file and the Constitution.
The detailed judgment noted that judge Mansoor Ali Shah and seven other judges had rendered the majority decision in favor of the allocation of reserved seats.
“All the judges have agreed that the Sunni Council of Ittehad (sic) was not entitled to the reserved seats”, the detailed verdict judged, adding that the court had unanimously rejected the two SIC calls. The court also noted that the SIC had not filed any petition against the rejection of its calls.
“SIC lawyer, Faisal, Siddiqi said:” In this loss, there is my victory “, said the verdict. The detailed verdict judged that the Supreme Court can indeed issue directives to guarantee complete justice, but that the use of article 187 must be based on facts and law.
The verdict also noted that the PTI had not requested seats reserved for any judicial forum, adding that the PTI was not a part before the ECP or the High Court of Peshawar.
Likewise, the court judged that the PTI had not challenged the PHC decision before the Supreme Court, adding that its request before the Apex Court was only for legal aid.
“For these reasons, a repair under article 187 could not be granted to the PTI,” said the verdict.
With regard to the SIC, the court noted that the central judgment had unanimously rejected appeals, declaring that they were not entitled to the seats.
“In the PTI affair, it was not a party to any forum, so the reparation granted in the central decision cannot bear,” said the verdict.
The detailed verdict noted that the Supreme Court has never forbidden the PTI to contest the elections, adding that none of the 80 independent candidates claimed to be candidates of the PTI or authorized to reserved seats.
“The elected candidates independently who had freely and voluntarily joined the SIC within 3 days, as required by the Constitution, should no longer remain parliamentary members of the SIC and their membership was transferred to the PTI without determining their opinion and without demand or complaint by them or by IPT or the SIC,” noted the judgment.
Anyone whose name of the PTI management has chosen to include in the list of candidates for reserved seats were to be elected in proportion to the general seats that would have been obtained. The electorate had never had the opportunity to consider this list or to vote to support or against it.
The people were deprived of the mandate to elect candidates for the reserved seats, without any doubt indirectly, and the case was now placed in their hands and made a donation by the party leadership to the persons whom she loved accordingly of the judicial orders, he added: “The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction that the limits are both at the same time. In question by any other ministry of the government or even by another constitutional institution, whether the legislator or the executive.
The authority to interpret the law and the Constitution, however, does not confer the courts the power to rewrite the Constitution or the Act. The will of the Legislative Assembly and the will of the delegated constitution manufacturers as it is by the people must be respected and give an effect to.
He cannot be canceled or usurped by the judiciary by grinding artificial meanings to the clear language of the Constitution or by derogating from the clear sense of his words. Any court or judge, including the Supreme Court and its judges, has no jurisdiction to read their tastes and do not like personal in the Constitution or to ignore or bypass their commandments. »»
