Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan issued a comprehensive 29-page dissenting note on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) receiving reserved seats. The two justices disagreed with the majority decision, emphasizing the procedural and constitutional issues involved in the case.
Delay in Issuing the Detailed Decision
In their dissenting note, Justices Khan and Afghan pointed out that despite 15 days having passed. The court had not yet issued the detailed decision. They argued that this delay could undermine the effectiveness of the review process. They emphasized that issuing a timely. Detailed decision is crucial for the parties involved to understand the grounds of the decision and prepare
Inclusion of Sunni Ittehad Council’s Letters
The dissenting note incorporated four letters from the Sunni Ittehad Council addressed to the Election Commission. After completing the procedural requirements. The justices highlighted that the Election Commission only recognized independent candidates in the National Assembly and the three provincial assemblies. The brief majority decision clarified that referencing 39 or 41 assembly members was non-contentious. Emphasizing that this issue was never disputed.
Constitutional and Jurisdictional Concerns
The justices underscored that providing relief to PTI would necessitate exceeding the jurisdiction granted by Articles 175 and 185 of the Constitution.
Lack of Objection in Judicial Proceedings
It was noted that there were no objections in any court of law concerning the members not becoming part of the Sunni Ittehad Council. Also, PTI did not participate in either the Election Commission or the High Court’s proceedings and joined these legal battles when the Supreme Court delivered its ruling. The absence of involvement by PTI at earlier stages raised questions regarding fairness and transparency during such trials.
Judges’ Questions During Hearings
The note mentioned that during the eight hearings of the 13-member full court. The judges spent most of the time addressing questions. Some judges questioned whether they could allocate reserved seats to PTI, reflecting the complexity and contentious nature of the issue
The justices noted that none of the lawyers agreed to allocate reserved seats to PTI, indicating a consensus against such a decision.
Arguments by Kanwal Shauzab’s Lawyer
Additionally, the dissenting note highlighted the arguments made by Kanwal Shauzab’s lawyer, Salman Akram Raja. He clearly stated that he did not agree with allocating reserved seats to PTI. His arguments reinforced the justices’ position that legal or constitutional grounds did not support the allocation of reserved seats to PTI.
summery
Justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan’s detailed dissenting note thoroughly critiques the majority decision to allocate reserved seats to PTI. Their arguments highlight significant procedural delays, constitutional concerns, and a need for more consensus among legal representatives.
