Islamabad:
Certain members of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court have raised a certain number of questions concerning the powers of the SC to guarantee “complete justice”. They also asked how the non-allocations of the seats reserved for the PTI could be called a violation of fundamental rights.
Friday, the lawyer of the chief of the chief of the PTI Kanwal Shauzab, Salman Akram Raja, resumed his arguments in support of the majority ordinance of July 12 of the SC in the case of the seats reserved before the CB of 11 members led by Judge Amicin Khan who hears examination of examination against the verdict.
Raja, in his arguments, said that it is the responsibility of this court to protect fundamental rights and that this responsibility was awarded to him by the Constitution.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja on how article 187 applies in this case.
Article 187 (1) gives the Supreme Court the power to issue any order or directive necessary to do total justice in any case in progress, while article 187 (2) gives it powers as a civil court to apply its decisions, in particular by issuing orders to any person or authority.
Raja replied that he would explain this in detail later. He said that the Supreme Court had a wider authority and may use article 187 with article 184 to do full justice.
Judge Mandokhail asked if article 184, paragraph 3, was used in cases of public interest.
Salman Akram Raja replied in the affirmative. He said that SC can use article 184, paragraph 3, for public interest and fundamental rights. “In the event of destruction or crisis, we do not ask which article applies – then the Supreme Court must move forward and do what is necessary.”
Judge Mandokhail asked whether, if a constitutional violation occurs but no specific article applies, the SC should always take measures. The lawyer declared in such a situation, the SC should do everything necessary.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that article 199 could not be read with article 187. He pointed out that by virtue of article 199, the High Court has powers that even the Supreme Court does not have.
Article 199 of the Constitution describes the written competence of the high lessons. It allows high lessons to issue various goals (orders) to apply fundamental rights and guarantee the legal conduct of the authorities.
Judge Salahuddin Panhwar asked what, in his opinion, the limits of the powers of the Supreme Court. Justice Jamal Mandokhail said: “My brother judge suggests that there must be a certain limit to powers. Does the Supreme Court have unlimited powers in each case?”
He then asked whether a constitutional or legal violation had taken place in the majority decision of the reserved seats case. Salman Akram Raja said: “There was no overtaking in the decision of the Supreme Court.”
Judge Mandokhail pointed out that the Constitution itself gives the parties the right to join within three days. Judge Amicin Khan intervened.
