ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has issued its detailed judgement in the reserved seats case, declaring that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) received relief without being a party to the case, which could not be sustained.
The apex court emphasised it has the authority to interpret the Constitution but not to rewrite it.
The 47-page verdict has been authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with dissenting notes from Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recorded separate reasons for recusing himself.
The verdict stated that review petitions can only be heard by a constitutional bench.
A 13-member bench heard the pleas, with 11 judges issuing notices to parties including the attorney general and advocate generals, while two judges dismissed the review petitions, it said.
The Supreme Court ruled that PTI was not a party before any forum — the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of Pakistan, or the Peshawar High Court — and therefore could not be granted relief.
It noted that none of the 80 independent candidates declared by returning officers had claimed to be PTI nominees entitled to reserved seats. The ECP had allocated the seats to other parties, which were de-seated in the main ruling without being heard.
The judgment said that relief could not be granted to a non-party under Article 187 of the Constitution, stressing that “complete justice” cannot be used to justify rewriting the law.
The apex court also criticised the conduct of the Sunni Ittehad Council and its lawyers, noting their tactics caused delays despite the case being straightforward in law.
The bench clarified that the court never barred PTI from contesting elections, and said PTI’s candidates wrongly assumed they had been declared independents without challenging returning officers’ rulings.
It further said that forming a special bench by excluding minority judges was illegal and had no precedent, adding that constitutional timelines could only be changed through a parliamentary amendment.
“The Supreme Court has not been given the power to rewrite the Constitution while interpreting it, nor can any judge interpret it on the basis of personal preference,” the judgment concluded.