- CB led by Justice Aminuddin issues detailed verdict, saying no issue on reserved seats was pending when Article 187 was invoked
- Ruling eight-judge judgment ‘not justified’ in granting relief as it lack of jurisdiction
- Bench stresses power to do ‘complete justice’ cannot be exercised in a vacuum
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) on Thursday ruled that last year’s July 12 eight-judge majority judgment on grant of reserved seats to Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) had exceeded the limits of judicial authority, saying that the relief was wrongly awarded under Article 187 of the Constitution when no such plea was pending before the court.
Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the CB had already set aside the July 12, 2024 verdict through a short order on June 26, declaring PTI ineligible for reserved seats.
The court’s detailed verdict, issued on Thursday, elaborated that 10 out of 12 judges found no justification for invoking Article 187 — a constitutional provision empowering the court to “do complete justice” — especially when appeals were already pending under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).
Excess of jurisdiction
The bench held that the July 12 judgment exceeded the limits of judicial authority, as it granted relief to a party not before the court, unseated MNAs and MPAs who had lawfully taken oath, and issued declarations beyond statutory or constitutional jurisdiction.
“The July 12 judgment, being in excess of jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court and contrary to statutory and constitutional provisions, suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record which float on the surface,” the CB observed, adding that the verdict had to be set aside.
Apex court must stay within limits
Clarifying the scope of judicial authority, the CB stressed that while the Supreme Court enjoys absolute jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and laws, this authority remains binding only if it stays within limits.
“The authority to interpret the law and Constitution does not confer the authority to rewrite them,” the judgment stated, warning that courts and judges have no power to impose personal preferences or artificial meanings into constitutional text.
Respect for the will of the legislature and Constitution-makers, the CB noted, is fundamental. Any attempt by the judiciary to circumvent or negate constitutional commands undermines democratic principles.
Rights of returned candidates ignored
The detailed order underscored that the July 12 ruling overlooked the constitutional and legal protections of candidates who had already been elected on reserved seats and taken oath.
Their elections, the CB stressed, could not have been declared void except through an election petition, as mandated by the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017. Several returned candidates were not even party to the proceedings, yet their mandates were disregarded.
The judgment criticised the notion advanced in the July 12 ruling that election disputes are “inquisitorial” in nature. Instead, the CB clarified, appeals under Article 185 are adversarial proceedings, litigated between parties, like civil disputes. “No Supreme Court judgment supports the proposition that election disputes are inquisitorial,” the order added.
ECP notification restored
The CB also set aside the earlier order that had quashed the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) May 13, 2024 notification, which had recognised certain candidates on reserved seats. The court ruled that undoing these elections was not sustainable either in law or under the Constitution.
Dissenting note
Meanwhile, Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi issued a separate six-page note, voicing concerns over the constitution of the CB that heard the review petitions.
They pointed out that the review was initially heard by a 13-judge bench, of which five members — including Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — were available but not included in the reconstituted CB. This exclusion, they noted, flowed from Article 191A, inserted through the 26th Amendment, which requires CBs to be constituted through nominations by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP).
The note emphasized that the JCP, tasked under the Constitution to safeguard judicial independence, must discharge its duties with constitutional propriety. Any doubts about fairness in bench formation, it warned, undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
It further highlighted that the three-judge committee responsible for fixing cases before CBs also carries a constitutional duty to ensure transparency. “When constitution of the bench gives rise to doubts about fairness, the legitimacy of the entire process is called into question,” the note observed.
