By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: Two judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a 29-page detailed dissenting note on Saturday, questioning the majority verdict in the reserved seats case, which granted relief to former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party.
Justices Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan argued that PTI “was not before the court nor did it try to become a party before the ECP” and therefore, relief cannot be granted to the party.
“We are also of the firm view that no other constitutional body can be asked to take any steps or decisions that are not permissible under the Constitution,” the judges noted.
The majority verdict, issued on July 12, allowed PTI to claim reserved seats for women and minorities in provincial assemblies, overturning earlier decisions by the Peshawar High Court and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The dissenting judges pointed out that the Sunni Ittihad Council, which was joined by PTI’s independent candidates, did not contest the February 8 polls as a political party.
In response to a query by some members of the bench, whether the reserved seats can be given to PTI in the peculiar circumstances of this case, none of the counsels agreed to this, though the suggestion was made by some members of the bench repeatedly.
“I recall that Salman Akram Raja replied that he would not press for the seats to be given to PTI, but the court has the power to do so,” the judges noted.
The note said that the PTI was not a party to the current case, and to provide relief to the party, the court has to “travel beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 175 and 185 of the Constitution”.
“Unless Articles 51, 106, and 63 of the Constitution are suspended, and new articles in consonance with the relief granted through the majority order are inserted in the Constitution, the relief granted to PTI cannot be granted.”
They added that Article 175 (Establishment and Jurisdiction of Courts) and the constitutional limits of jurisdiction under Article 185 (Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court) of the Constitution have been ignored.
“All substantive and procedural law regarding parties to the lis has been ignored… the relief given to PTI would be self-created.”
“Not only has SIC not been granted the relief claimed by it, but all those who have joined it have been taken off, and for the rest of the tenure of the National and provincial assemblies, SIC has been kicked out of the assemblies,” it said.
The two apex court judges wondered how the notification of returned candidates can be held valid before the date it was quashed.
“The majority judgment virtually declares that said 80 persons are not honest and ameen in accordance with Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution,” the note said, and maintained that all returned candidates for the reserved seats of other parties who have been notified were not issued notices and provided an opportunity of hearing.
The judges also raised concerns over the delay in releasing the majority detailed verdict, stating that “the delay may render the review petition filed against the order of the court infructuous.”
“Therefore, based on the short order, we have been compelled to record our findings, which are in two parts. The first part states why we are unable to agree with the majority decision, and the second part states our decision on the appeals based on the merits of the case.”
The ruling parties, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Pakistan Peoples Party, have filed a review petition against the majority verdict.
The ECP has partially implemented the top court’s ruling, notifying 39 out of 80 MNAs as PTI members and 93 lawmakers in provincial assemblies as “returned candidates” of the PTI. However, the commission has sought further guidance from the apex court on implementing the order.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
