Supreme Court issues detailed, 70-page judgment in reserved seating case

The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) has released a 70-page judgment on the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) reserved seats case.

Chief Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wrote a 70-page judgment.

The detailed judgment states that in principle it is the people who decide the election, which highlights the special nature of election disputes compared to other civil matters.

Read more: Supreme Court ruling on reserved seating conditions is clear ‘violation’ of Constitution

The aim of the judgment is to clarify the legal principles and procedures related to elections and to underline the importance of a fair and transparent electoral process.

SC points out ‘lack of courtesy’ in dissenting opinions of Justice Aminuddin and Justice Naeem

The Supreme Court's detailed judgment in the reserved seats case highlighted the differences of opinion among the judges. The decision particularly addressed the dissenting observations of Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, who said that their disagreement with the majority judgment was inappropriate given their position.

According to the ruling, judges do not always need to agree completely, but the manner in which they dissent should reflect their judicial role.

It is important to note that two judges disagreed with the majority decision, while the remaining three, including the Chief Justice, agreed that the powers of the comprehensive administration of justice could be used to a certain extent.

Read more: ECP fails to meet its obligations in February 2024: SC

The detailed judgment expressed regret that, despite several discussions, the Court had not been able to agree on a final remedy for absolute justice.

The Supreme Court stressed that the majority of the eleven judges were of the view that the candidates and voters of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had been deprived of their fundamental rights by the illegal actions of the returning officers and the Election Commission.

The principle of proportional representation for certain seats was also compromised. However, three judges, including the Chief Justice, did not agree to restore the rights of legitimate candidates.

In their dissenting opinion, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan described the majority decision of July 12 as unconstitutional. While the majority judgment respected their opinion, it contradicted the style of their dissenting opinion.

The Supreme Court also stressed that judges must deliver comprehensive judgments, respectfully considering both their own views and those of their dissenting colleagues. Differences of opinion should not lead to ego clashes or a loss of civility, the ruling stressed.