Naveed Ahmad Khan
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Monday issued its detailed judgement in the reserved seats case, penned by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and spanning 70 pages.
The detailed verdict comes two months after the full court bench’s decision on July 12, where a majority of 8 judges ruled in favor of awarding reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The top court ruled in favor of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), declaring the party eligible for seats reserved for women and minorities.
A 13-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case. Other notable justices included Mansoor Ali Shah, Shahid Waheed, Ayesha Malik, Irfan Saadat, Athar Minallah, Muneeb Akhtar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Eight judges who gave a majority verdict included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan.
The detailed judgement issued today, available on SC website, has ruled that PTI was a political party which contested the Feb 8 elections and won seats in the National and provincial assemblies.
“The reserved seats should be given to the PTI,” the court ruled. The apex court further observed that the ECP had failed to perform its constitutional duties.
Moreover, the top court has rebuked two judges, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, for their “unbecoming conduct” in a dissenting note dated August 3, 2024.
The Supreme Court in its detailed judgement expressed disappointment and concern over the two judges’ remarks, which allegedly “undermined the institution’s integrity and obstructed the administration of justice.”
The 70-page judgement states: “Before parting with the judgment, we feel constrained to observe, with a heavy heart, that our two learned colleagues in the minority (Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan) have made certain observations in their dissenting judgment dated 3 August 2024, which do not behove Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the highest court of the land.”
“After expressing their view that the order we passed on 12 July 2024 is not in accordance with the Constitution and that we ignored and disregarded its mandate, they observed that: [i]f the said 39 plus 41 persons take any step on the basis of this judgment which is not in accordance with the Constitution, they may lose their seats as returned candidates on the basis of violation of the Constitution”,90 and that “any order of the Court which is not in consonance with the constitutional provisions is not binding upon any other constitutional organ of the State.”
“We take no issue with their having and expressing the view that, in their understanding, our order dated 12 July 2024 is not in accordance with the Constitution, as Members of a Bench of this Court, or any court, can legitimately differ on issues of fact and law,” it read.
“They may strongly express divergent opinions and make comments on each other’s views, highlighting reasons why they believe other Members have erred.
“What is more disquieting is that, through the said observations, they appear to have gone beyond the parameters of propriety by warning the 39 plus 41 (80) returned candidates and urging the Commission not to comply with the majority order, which is the decision of a thirteen-member Full Court Bench of this Court.”
“Such observations undermine the integrity of the highest institution of justice in the country and seem to constitute an attempt to obstruct the process of the Court and the administration of justice,” the detailed verdict read.
The judgement also added that the ECP, as a guarantor, cannot challenge the court order as an aggrieved person and contest the case as a party.
“This is essential for the legitimacy of elected representatives and the stability of the political system. The Commission must uphold democratic principles and the integrity of electoral processes by ensuring that elections truly reflect the will of the people, thereby preserving the democratic fabric of the nation,” it stressed.
“Unfortunately, the circumstances of the present case indicate that the Commission has failed to fulfil this role in the general elections of 2024,” the apex court observed.
It states: “Another matter that has surprised us during the proceedings of these appeals is the way the Commission participated in and contested the matter before us as a primary contesting party against SIC and PTI.
“The function performed by the Commission in the present case was, therefore, quasi-judicial. And, as held by this Court in Wafaqi Mohtasib and A. Rahim Foods, a body performing its quasi-judicial function in a matter between two rival parties cannot be treated as an aggrieved person if its decision is set aside or modified by a higher forum or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
“Such a body, therefore, does not have locus standi to challenge the decision of that higher forum or court. Nor, we may add, can such a body contest an appeal filed against its quasi-judicial decision by one of the rival parties as a primary contesting party.
“In the present case, the Commission was a proper party to assist the Court in effectively and completely adjudicating upon and settling all the questions involved in the case. It should have acted in this manner, not as a primary contesting party,” the verdict stated.