• Detailed order says authority to interpret laws does not mean rewriting Constitution; relief cannot be granted to party not before the court
• Dissenting judges question CB formation, ask JCP to discharge functions with integrity

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) ruled on Thursday that an eight-judge majority judgement from July 2024 was not justified in granting relief to the PTI by invoking Article 187 of the Constitution, which 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 had overturned the July 12, 2024 majority judgement in a short order on June 26.

In detailed reasons issued on Thursday, 10 judges of the 12-member bench 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 judgement said, adding that the exercise of authority purportedly under Article 187 to a party which 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 which were outside the scope of the statutory or constitutional authority of this court was not warranted.

The July 12 judgement 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, as per detailed reasons.

The top court, the CB exp­lained, enjoys the jurisdiction to interpret the statutes and the Constitution and its authority remains absolute insofar as it remains within limits.

However, the authority to interpret the law and the Constitution does not confer the authority on the top court to rewrite the Constitution or the law, it added.

The bench 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 ascribing 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 reasons 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.

Explaining further, the bench said the July 12 judgement ignored the rights of the returned candidates who were elected on reserved seats in the National Assembly and later took oath. Thus they enjoy a number of protections as a returned candidate under the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017, but were disregarded, the CB regretted.

These rights ensure that their election could not have been declared void, except through an election petition. Moreover, the review petitioners and several other returned candidates on reserved seats were not a party to the proceedings before the apex court besides no one had challenged the election of the petitioners before this court.

The premise for this exercise of authority without any constitutional mooring was that election disputes are not between candidates but are matters which concern the constituency and the nation, the CB explained, adding that it was clearly contrary to the explicit language of Article 225 of the Constitution.

It had been observed in the July 12 judgement, the CB said, that an election case could not be equated to “an ordinary civil case” and “the proceedings therein are inquisitorial in nature.”

The proceedings before the court are two civil appeals under Article 185 of the Constitution. These were adversarial proceedings and were being litigated between the parties. No Supreme Court judgement supported the proposition and none was cited in support of the novel proposition that election disputes were inquisitorial, not adversarial and were adjudicated and decided as civil disputes, it observed.

Bench reservations

Meanwhile, Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, who earlier dismissed the review petitions in liminie, in a six-page note expressed reservations about the constitution of the bench hearing the review petitions.

Originally, the review petition was heard by a 13-judge bench, of which five judges, including Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, were available, yet they were not included in the bench.

This exclusion is based on Article 191A inserted through the 26th Amendment, which requ­ires the formation of CBs, the note said, adding that the excluded judges were not nominated for the CB by the Judicial Commi­ssion of Pakistan (JCP).

The note said it was incumbent upon the JCP members to discharge their functions with integrity and in a manner that exemplifies constitutional propriety, ensuring that the independence and integrity of the judiciary were always protected and maintained.

Published in Dawn, October 3rd, 2025