ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court judge Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail Friday raised the question that whether the apex court have unlimited powers, adding that there must be some limits to its authority.
An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against the court’s July 12, 2024 verdict on the reserved seats case.
Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Aamir Farooq, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Friday informed the Supreme Court that neither the Constitution nor the law was violated in the July 12, 2024 reserved seats judgement, asserting that the apex court holds constitutional powers exercisable in any circumstance.
Salman Akram Raja, counsel for PTI Women Wing President Kanwal Shauzab, argued that the reserved seats judgement—delivered by an 11-judge bench—did not contravene the Constitution or the law. He contended that independent candidates were granted 15 days instead of three to join a political party of their choice, emphasising that the Supreme Court possesses constitutional authority to intervene where necessary.
Raja stressed that safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Constitution, remains the court’s duty.
Justice Mandokhail questioned how Article 187, related to complete justice, applied to the case. Raja replied that he would address the matter in detail later.
Asserting the Supreme Court’s broad powers, Raja argued that both Articles 187 and 184(3) enable the court to ensure complete justice. Justice Mandokhail countered, asking whether Article 184(3) is invoked solely in public interest.
Raja affirmed, stating the court could employ the article to protect public interest and fundamental rights. “When a crisis arises, the relevant article becomes secondary—what matters is the Supreme Court stepping in to do what’s necessary,” he contended.
Justice Mandokhail pressed further: If a constitutional violation lacks specific coverage under any article, should the court still intervene? Raja maintained that the court must act as required.
Justice Mazhar observed that Article 199 (High Court powers) cannot be conflated with Article 187, noting that high courts possess powers even the Supreme Court lacks.
Justice Panhwar inquired about the limits of the Supreme Court’s authority, while Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the court enjoys unlimited discretion in every case.
When asked if the reserved seats ruling involved any constitutional or legal breach, Raja reiterated there was none. Justice Aminuddin pointed out that Sunni Ittehad Council’s counsel, Faisal Siddiqi, had argued that only Article 187 applied, whereas Raja relied on both Articles 187 and 184.
Raja responded that the same outcome could be reached using Article 187 alone.
Justice Mandokhail probed whether the court must cite constitutional provisions when exercising its powers, even whimsically—such as dismissing a prime minister abruptly. Raja replied that the court’s constitutional authority is unrestricted.
Reiterating his stance, Raja stated that extending the joining period for independent candidates to 15 days was legally necessary, as no alternative solution existed.
Justice Najafi questioned whether Article 184(3) is mandatory for exercising complete justice or if such power can be invoked without a petition under the article. Raja clarified that the court’s complete justice authority encompasses Article 184(3).
Raja noted that all 11 judges agreed the PTI was entitled to reserved seats for women and minorities; the dispute centred only on seat allocation.
Justice Musarrat Hilali asked whether voting rights are innate or granted at 18. Raja replied that while the right is constitutional, its exercise is legally restricted to adults.
Justice Panhwar remarked that in 1970, the public was denied the right to elect representatives. Raja added that such deprivations have recurred repeatedly.
Justice Najafi queried if reserved seats constitute a political party’s fundamental right. Raja affirmed, stating that public votes inherently entitle parties to these seats.
Earlier, Justice Hilali remarked that Raja often elaborates on YouTube but avoids direct answers in court. Raja denied being a “YouTuber,” stating he requires time to formulate responses. Justice Hilali retorted that even YouTubers rely on substantive court answers.
Raja reflected on lifelong learning, citing his presence during the Asghar Khan case, where election interference was admitted “in national interest.”
Justice Mandokhail reminded Raja of his dual role as a party secretary. Raja replied that he fulfills political duties outside court. “Speak, for your lips are free,” he said, adding that in court, he is solely a lawyer.
Raja referenced past martial law and legal manipulations like Article 58(2)(b). Justice Mandokhail dismissed this as “old history,” noting that political non-compliance often follows judicial rulings.
“In every era, one party benefits,” Justice Mandokhail observed. Raja deferred a response, saying he would address it outside court.
Raja concluded by stating that the 11-judge bench recognised “hidden realities, not just artificial ones.” He submitted argument notes and case citations on review jurisdiction.
When Justice Aminuddin asked Raja how long he would take to conclude his arguments, Raja replied that by 12 noon; however, he could not. The hearing was adjourned until Monday, June 23.
