Islamabad, Pakistan: The dissenting notes of two judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in reserve seat case judgment voiced that the State must protect the Constitution decisively and firmly.
Dissenting notes not only expose the bias and ultra-constitutional majority verdict but also point toward the larger problem of politicization within our higher judiciary.
According to the dissent note of Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem, the fate of 80 members of the National Assembly was decided by the Supreme Court without hearing them. The controversial decision of the full bench of the Supreme Court has already raised several questions. The dissent notes of two judges stated that not only were the appeals of the Sunni Ittehad Council rejected, but the independent members who joined the Sunni Ittehad Council were taken away from the Sunni Ittehad Council without being heard.
When the Supreme Court hears an appeal, its jurisdiction is limited, which was ignored in the majority judgment, the dissent notes. If the PTI is given reserved seats, it will be a self-created relief by the court, the dissent notes. The Sunni Ittehad Council was thrown out of the National and Provincial Assemblies, the dissenting notes added. It further says that it is our (judges) clear position that no constitutional body can be asked to follow a decision that is not in accordance with the Constitution.
It is pertinent to remember that on July 12, 2024, the Supreme Court declared the decision of the Election Commission and the Peshawar High Court null and void while giving a safe decision on the application related to the specific seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council. After this decision, a review application was also filed by the government. Due to the judges’ summer vacation, they have not yet been appointed and a detailed decision in the case has not been issued.
The judges who gave a dissenting note on the decision to give specific seats to PTI issued their minority decision. Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem dissented from the majority judgment – the dissenting judgment consists of 29 pages. Both the judges said in dissenting notes that despite the expiry of 15 days after the short ruling, the majority decision could not be issued, due to the delay in the detailed decision, (judges) we are giving our findings only on the short ruling.
The dissenting note by the judges not only exposed the partiality of the majority judgment but also pointed to a larger problem of politics within the higher judiciary, legal experts said. In this regard, the state should protect the constitution decisively and firmly.
The minority note of Justice Aminuddin and Justice Naeem not only raises serious questions but it is a charge sheet against the majority judges who have violated many articles of the constitution through their decision. And it has been rightly said that it is not the duty of the institutions to comply with any illegal order. This note will form a solid basis for the review and these 8 judges will have to reconsider their decision – legal experts have questioned whether the PTI was before the Supreme Court, Peshawar High Court, or the Election Commission of Pakistan. no
Legal experts also say that no one had any objection to the inclusion of 80 independent members in the Sunni Unity Council – the 39 and 41 members mentioned in the majority judgment did not appear before this court. They have been heard, and the rights and fate of these members were decided in a short majority judgment without knowing their will, without even hearing them, their Sunni Unity Council was rejected without appearing in this court or the High Court.
The majority judgment not only dismissed the appeals filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council, but the Sunni Ittehad Council was not given any relief, but the independent members who joined the party were also taken away without hearing them.
Legal experts say that unless Articles 51, 106, and 63 of the Constitution are suspended and new articles are added to the Constitution as per the relief given by the majority decision, the PTI will not The relief granted cannot be granted, Article 175 of the Constitution has also been ignored here – the constitutional limitation of jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution, all substantive and procedural matters concerning the parties in the list has been ignored. The law has been ignored, and the relief given to PTI was not demanded by PTI, so it has become a kind of self-imposed relief.
Legal experts also raise the question that in the majority brief order, the notification of the candidates appearing for certain seats on May 5, 2024, has been suspended, but their notification and other actions before this date have been accepted as valid. because all this has been done without the constitution – legal experts also say that the majority summary judgment has declared that according to article 62 (1) (f) of the constitution, these members are not honest and trustworthy – others No notices were issued to candidates for specific seats of the parties, nor were they given any opportunity to be heard
According to the legal experts, the 41 candidates mentioned in Appendix B have been authorized to join any other political party, the issue was only after the general election which is a proportional representation of the list of candidates of political parties under Articles 51 and 106 of the Constitution. Based on the system, there was direct access to reserved seats for both women and non-Muslims.
The majority judgment created a new parliamentary party in the national and three provincial assemblies and since they relate to the pre-election process, there is clearly no issue before this court, all the factors in the general election process are settled and They are time bound and cannot be changed
According to legal experts, the full bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court was set aside by the majority judgment of the Supreme Court to the extent that it was inconsistent with the summary judgment of the majority. None of the rights that have accrued in favor of I was heard before the High Court and was not decided.
Finally, it is clear that this summary judgment of the majority does not in any way fall within the jurisdiction of the Court or the Constitution.
