Two senior judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have issued a detailed dissenting note challenging the majority judgment on the allotment of reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The dissenting note, authored by Justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, suggests that Articles 51, 63, and 106 of the Constitution may need to be suspended to provide relief to PTI.
The dissent emerged following an 8-5 majority verdict delivered by the Supreme Court on July 12, which reversed prior decisions by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The majority ruling had declared PTI eligible for reserved seats for women and minorities in the assemblies, a decision that has sparked controversy and debate.
In their dissenting note, the two judges criticised the majority verdict, emphasising that PTI was not a party to the case before the Supreme Court, nor did it engage with the ECP.
They argued that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), which had filed the case, did not participate in the February 8 general elections as a political entity and thus could not claim reserved seats for PTI.
Supreme Court Dissent Note PTI Reserved Seats by Wajid Ali on Scribd
The dissenting judges expressed concerns about the procedural fairness of the case, noting that 80 members’ fates were decided without their input. They also criticized the delay in issuing a detailed judgment, which, they argue, undermines the integrity of the legal process.
Their dissent highlights several critical points:
- Constitutional suspension: For PTI to be granted relief, the judges argue that Articles 51, 63, and 106 of the Constitution would need to be suspended, as these articles govern the allocation of reserved seats and the requirements for political parties
- Jurisdictional concerns: The dissenting note emphasizes that the Supreme Court's decision effectively decided the fate of 80 members without a proper hearing, questioning the Court's jurisdiction in overturning decisions made by the ECP and PHC
- Procedural issues: The dissenting judges criticize the majority for not considering the procedural deficiencies, including the lack of participation by PTI and the delay in issuing the detailed judgment. They note that the Sunni Ittehad Council did not participate in the elections as a political party and had failed to submit candidate lists to the ECP
