The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday issued its detailed 47-page judgment in the reserved seats case, ruling that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) could not have been granted relief under the court’s suo motu jurisdiction.

Authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the verdict includes dissenting notes by Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, as well as a separate note by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, explaining his decision to recuse from the proceedings.

The detailed decision follows the court’s June 27 ruling, which accepted review petitions against the earlier majority verdict that had awarded reserved seats to PTI-backed candidates.

The judgment stated that the principle of complete justice under Article 187 could not be invoked to grant PTI a relief it was not legally entitled to.

It noted that the earlier ruling led to unconstitutional outcomes, including the de-notification of some lawmakers and orders beyond the constitutional framework.

The court observed that the majority decision to grant PTI reserved seats was against both the record and the Constitution, and therefore stood annulled.

The verdict further recalled that eight judges, including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, had earlier supported granting PTI reserved seats, but the present review could not uphold that stance.

The judgment also emphasised that both appeals filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) had been dismissed unanimously, and no separate petition was filed against that dismissal.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had already allocated the reserved seats to other political parties, while de-seating some members without hearing them was deemed contrary to the principles of law and justice.

The court underlined that PTI was not a party before the ECP or the Peshawar High Court in the matter of reserved seats, nor did it challenge the PHC ruling in the Supreme Court.

Instead, a petition filed by Barrister Gohar, PTI chairman, was considered by the court only for legal assistance, not as a formal party submission.

The ruling listed seven undisputed facts, concluding that the relief granted in the original verdict could not be sustained in light of the legal position and party status.

The court clarified that the Supreme Court never barred PTI from contesting elections.

It rejected the perception that 80 independent candidates had ever claimed, before any forum, that they were PTI nominees entitled to reserved seats.

During the hearing, SIC’s counsel Faisal Siddiqi considered the judgment favourable to his client. The court also noted that it can issue guidelines for future cases to ensure constitutional and legal requirements are strictly observed in matters concerning reserved seats.