The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) has released a 70-page judgment regarding the reserved seats case of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).
SC Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wrote a 70-page verdict.
The detailed verdict stated that the stakes in the election fundamentally lie with the people, highlighting the unique nature of election disputes compared to other civil matters.
The judgment aims to clarify legal principles and procedures involved in electoral issues, reinforcing the importance of a fair and transparent electoral process.
SC points out ‘absence of civility’ in dissenting notes of Justice Aminuddin and Justice Naeem
Supreme Court's detailed verdict on the reserved seats case highlighted the disagreements among the bench members as the ruling particularly addressed the dissenting notes of Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, stating that their disagreement with the majority judgment was inappropriate given their position.
According to the judgment, it is not necessary for judges to always have complete alignment, but the manner of 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, concurred on using the powers of complete justice to a certain extent.
The detailed judgment expressed regret that, despite several discussions, the bench could not agree on the ultimate relief for absolute justice.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the majority of the 11 judges believed that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) candidates and voters were deprived of their fundamental rights by the illegal actions of Returning Officers (ROs) and the Election Commission.
The principle of proportional representation on specific seats was also compromised. However, three judges, including the Chief Justice, disagreed on the matter of restoring the rights to the rightful candidates.
In their dissenting note, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan labeled the majority decision of July 12 as unconstitutional. The majority judgment, while respecting their opinion, disagreed with the style of their dissent.
The Supreme Court also stressed that judges must offer comprehensive judgments, considering both their views and those of their dissenting colleagues in a respectful manner. Disagreement should not lead to ego clashes or a loss of civility, the judgment emphasized.
