SC rebukes ‘misconceived’ ECP clarification request, orders immediate implentation of reserved seats verdict

[M. Sarmad]

Don’t try to run away!
You asked for the clauses which were subverted, suspended, or overstepped by these eight judges. I provided you with a few of those clauses. Now you tell us how the eight judges have responded to the rather grave indirect charges by their peer judges. What I found in their detailed judgement is only the disgraceful person attacks by naming the two judges.

Tell us how the eight judges have proved that they have not subverted, suspended, and overstepped the legal/constitutional clauses they were indirectly accused of.

Again, don’t run away. If you expect a meaningful response from me, then so do I from you. In fact, I will ask you more than this. But let’s first see what you come up with.

I'm not going anywhere, mate. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying. Maybe you missed my post. I already told you that these objections were thoroughly discussed and dismissed in the detailed judgment. I asked you to read it, but you haven't. How can you form an opinion about a judgment you haven’t even read?

That said, if you're up for it, we can go over the clauses one by one. You first claimed that 187(1) was wrongly invoked. But did you know that it's not 8, but actually 11 out of 13 judges (including CJP Qazi Faiz Isa) who believe 187(1) was correctly invoked? Do you really think those 11 Supreme Court judges are wrong, and that you know the Constitution better than them? We can tackle the other clauses after that.

 

[prothought]

I'm not going anywhere, mate. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying. Maybe you missed my post. I already told you that these objections were thoroughly discussed and dismissed in the detailed judgment. I asked you to read it, but you haven't. How can you form an opinion about a judgment you haven’t even read?

That said, if you're up for it, we can go over the clauses one by one. You first claimed that 187(1) was wrongly invoked. But did you know that it's not 8, but actually 11 out of 13 judges (including CJP Qazi Faiz Isa) who believe 187(1) was correctly invoked? Do you really think those 11 Supreme Court judges are wrong, and that you know the Constitution better than them? We can tackle the other clauses after that.

So, now you have moved to this new position that do I really think those 11 Supreme Court judges are wrong, and that I know the Constitution better than them? It is already known to all that they are judges, it’s their roti, rozi.

Apparently, those judges are playing politics and so favored PTI, which was not a party in the case at all. It was an appeal by another political party and the scope of an appeal is always limited. While doing that favor to PTI, these judges have subverted, suspended, or overstepped many clauses.

You were supposed to tell us how they have used 187(1) by not overriding those clauses. Instead, you are asking me if I know more about the law than those eight judges. It's not about the knowledge.

It's about mala fide intention. It's about selfishness and greed. It’s also about bias and political orientation. It’s about the conflict of interests (personal interests). Five of those eight judges have a person stake in this judgement. Their turn to become the CJP is at stake. Their actions are exposing them badly. Their past judgments have already exposed their mala fide intention, political aims, and bias.

Now you are running away to prove otherwise. Good luck, buddy.

 

[M. Sarmad]

So, now you have moved to this new position that do I really think those 11 Supreme Court judges are wrong, and that I know the Constitution better than them? It is already known to all that they are judges, it’s their roti, rozi.

Apparently, those judges are playing politics and so favored PTI, which was not a party in the case at all. It was an appeal by another political party and the scope of an appeal is always limited. While doing that favor to PTI, these judges have subverted, suspended, or overstepped many clauses.

You were supposed to tell us how they have used 187(1) by not overriding those clauses. Instead, you are asking me if I know more about the law than those eight judges. It's not about the knowledge.

It's about mala fide intention. It's about selfishness and greed. It’s also about bias and political orientation. It’s about the conflict of interests (personal interests). Five of those eight judges have a person stake in this judgement. Their turn to become the CJP is at stake. Their actions are exposing them badly. Their past judgments have already exposed their mala fide intention, political aims, and bias.

Now you are running away to prove otherwise. Good luck, buddy.

First and foremost, it's commendable that you're engaging in this discussion with civility—everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion. To clarify, I haven’t shifted my argument. I still find it difficult to understand how you consider this a violation of Article 187(1). It is an independent clause subject to 175(2), not contingent upon any other. Even if another clause were to be violated, it has no impact on the invocation of 187(1), which unequivocally grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue any order necessary to ensure complete justice in any matter before it.

So, your argument is fundamentally flawed. No other article prevents the Supreme Court from invoking Article 187(1), so your claim that invoking it overrides other clauses is unfounded. Moreover, I haven't made that argument—you’re the one asserting that 187(1) was wrongly invoked, so the burden of proof rests on you. And I know you can't substantiate that claim.


If we can reach an agreement on this point, we can proceed to address the other clauses that have been allegedly violated.

 

[Cipher212]

Bhai just make it simple. The reason PTI gets relief here is because the judges are looking at the bigger picture.

Can anyone here give a genuine justification for not letting PTI contest elections with its own symbol and on own ticket?

This whole SIC/PTI drama is because of past decisions. The thing is, these seats have to go somewhere. Who would you give them to if not PTI?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Bhai just make it simple. The reason PTI gets relief here is because the judges are looking at the bigger picture.

The PTI got relief because it submitted an application for impleadment in this case to become a party, which the Supreme Court accepted, albeit without adhering to certain procedural formalities.

The PDM's claim that the PTI was granted relief despite not being a party has been debunked by the Supreme Court in its detailed judgment.