Skip to content 
ISLAMABAD – Two Supreme Court justices have criticized the recent majority verdict on reserved seats, claiming it exceeds the court’s constitutional authority. Justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, in their dissenting opinion, argued that the July 12 judgment creates a “superstructure” beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
Read also: Fatal Shooting in Noshki Escalates Tensions Between Government and Baloch Activists
The dissenting judges stated that the case should have been limited to allocating reserved seats for women and non-Muslims based on proportional representation after general elections. They emphasized that election events are time-sensitive and irreversible.
The majority ruling, which deemed the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats in national and provincial assemblies, effectively establishes new parliamentary parties across all legislatures, according to the minority opinion.
The dissenting judges contend that implementing the majority’s decision would require suspending Articles 51, 106, and 63 of the Constitution and inserting new provisions. They noted that the detailed majority judgment remains unpublished, potentially affecting review petitions.
The minority opinion highlighted that PTI was not directly involved in the case before the Supreme Court, High Court, or Election Commission. It also pointed out that the 80 independent candidates who joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) were not disputed, yet the majority ruling impacts their status without their input.
The dissenting judges expressed concern that the majority judgment ignored constitutional limits on jurisdiction and procedural law. They argued that the relief granted to PTI was “self-created” and not claimed in the proceedings.
The minority opinion also noted that the SIC’s appeal was dismissed without relief, and its members were effectively removed from the assemblies. The judges questioned the legal basis for invalidating seat notifications for a specific date while maintaining their validity beforehand.
In conclusion, the dissenting justices raised concerns about the implications of the ruling on the constitutional rights of affected parties and the broader impact on Pakistan’s electoral system.
