Judge Jamal Mandokhail.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has made public Justice Jamal Mandokhail’s dissenting opinion in the reserved seats case, in which he rejected the majority decision that had partially accepted several appeals.
Its 12-page judgment, posted online on the court’s website, reaffirms its earlier position granting 39 reserved seats while challenging the legality of the majority’s approach to 41 others.
Justice Mandokhail said the majority decision regarding the 41 seats was incorrect, arguing that the court did not have the power to declare these candidates independent. He wrote that no judicial body, including the Supreme Court, can change a candidate’s declared political affiliation.
Furthermore, he stressed, the case of the 41 individuals was not pending before the court. He said the majority judgment was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the court and addressed issues never brought before it by any of the parties.
Reaffirming his stand, Justice Mandokhail said his initial decision regarding allocation of 39 seats remained intact and legally sound. He held that the majority ventured beyond the bounds of the brief, creating consequences for candidates who had not sought relief and whose political positions could not be reassigned by court order.
In his dissenting note, Justice Mandokhail also addressed the composition of the bench that heard the case. He wrote that the Judicial Commission did not face any restrictions in appointing a Supreme Court judge, including those who had been part of the previous bench that heard the main reserved seats case.
He said there was no reason to exclude these judges just because the case once again involved reserved seats. He said he had formally proposed to the Judicial Commission that all of these judges be included in the review panel, but the majority of the Commission did not accept his recommendation.
According to him, the inclusion of the original members of the court would have ensured continuity and respected the principles of consistency in the constitutional judgment. Justice Mandokhail emphasized that the Commission possessed the legal authority to make such appointments and his proposal was aimed at ensuring transparency and institutional trust.
