ISLAMABAD : The Supreme Court on Monday declared that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision of March 1 was contrary to the constitution and the reserved seats should be given to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The apex court issued its detailed judgement on the reserved seats. The verdict comprises 70 pages and is written by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
The Supreme Court annuled the Peshawar High Court’s and ECP’s March 1 decision.
On Sept 14, an eight-member bench of the apex court disposed of the ECP’s petition, stating that its request for clarification was merely a “delaying tactic”.
In the detailed judgement, the apex court ruled that the 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 Supreme Court said the ECP had failed to perform its constitutional duties.
The constitution and law does not bar any political party from fielding candidates in elections. Denying a party election symbol does not restrict it from contesting election, the judgement ruled.
The Supreme Court orders the ECP to notify PTI winning candidates.
ON TWO DISSENTING NOTES
Eight judges observed about dissenting note of two judges that “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.”
The Majority judgment also said:
“They may strongly express divergent opinions and make comments on each other’s views, highlighting reasons why they believe other Members have erred.
“However, the manner in which they have expressed their disagreement falls short of the courtesy and restraint required of Judges of the Superior Courts. 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.”
Earlier, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa sought “explanation” from the registrar of the Supreme Court asking nine questions on the decision on reserved seats pronounced on July 12.
