The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) on Thursday ruled that the eight-judge majority judgment announced on July 12, 2024, was not justified in granting relief to the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) by invoking Article 187 of the Constitution that empowers the court to do complete justice when no issue regarding the grant of reserved seats to the party was pending before it.
Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the CB through a short order on June 26 had overturned the July 12, 2024, majority judgment by declaring the PTI eligible for reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the national and the provincial assemblies.
In its detailed verdict issued on Thursday, 10 judges of the 12-judge CB held that there was no justification in giving relief to the PTI under Article 187, especially when appeals were filed and pursued by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution.
The facts and circumstances of this case did not require application of Article 187, the detailed judgment said, adding that the exercise of authority purportedly under Article 187 to grant relief to a party that was not before the court, to remove from office MNAs and MPAs who had been declared elected and who were not before the court, and to issue declarations and directives that were outside the scope of the statutory or constitutional authority of this court, was not warranted.
The July 12 judgment, being in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court and being contrary to the statutory and constitutional provisions, suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record which float on the surface, the CB observed in its detailed verdict, adding that it therefore had to be set aside.
Apex court must stay within its limits
The apex court, the Constitutional Bench explained, enjoys the jurisdiction to interpret the statutes and the Constitution and its authority remains absolute insofar it remains within limits.
It cannot be called into question by any other department of government or even by another constitutional institution, be it the legislature or the executive, it said, while stressing that the authority to interpret the law and the Constitution does not confer the authority to the top court to rewrite the Constitution or the law.
The CB emphasised that the will of the legislature and the Constitution-makers has to be respected and given effect to. It cannot be negated or usurped by the judiciary by scribing artificial meanings to the clear language of the Constitution or by derogating from the plain meaning of its words.
Any court or judge, including the Supreme Court judges, has no jurisdiction to read their personal likes and dislikes into the Constitution or to ignore or circumvent its commands, the detailed judgement said. The power to interpret is a very wide and formidable power indeed but that power is negated, not enhanced, when the court proceeds, under its guise, to rewrite the Constitution, the CB ruled.
