In their dissenting note on the reserved seats case, Justices Amin Uddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan criticized the relief granted to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, stating it amounted to self-created relief.
They highlighted that the majority opinion had established this relief without any party requesting it during the court proceedings, as detailed in their 29-page dissent issued on Saturday.
Last month, the Supreme Court’s majority verdict declared PTI eligible for seats reserved for women and minorities in both the National and provincial assemblies. The judgment determined that 39 of the 80 MNAs listed by the Election Commission of Pakistan were PTI candidates, while the remaining 41 independents needed to provide notarized statements to the ECP within 15 days to confirm their affiliation with a political party.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Shahid Waheed, Ayesha Malik, Irfan Saadat, Athar Minallah, Muneeb Akhtar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Muhammad Ali Mazhar. In contrast, Justices Khan and Afghan had dismissed the appeals, while Justice Yahya Afridi authored a separate note.
Justices Khan and Afghan outlined 16 reasons for their dissent, noting that PTI was not represented before the Supreme Court, the high court, or the ECP. They argued that the inclusion of 80 independent candidates in the Sunni Ittehad Council was uncontested and that the majority’s short order addressed their rights without their consent or participation.
They criticized the majority’s decision for dismissing SIC’s appeals and removing the independent members who joined the party without proper hearing. They also questioned how the notification of returned candidates could be valid before the date it was contested.
The dissenting judges argued that the majority’s order effectively created a new parliamentary party, which was outside the court’s jurisdiction and unconstitutional. They contended that the majority judgment ignored procedural rules, substantive law, and constitutional limits, creating a relief for PTI that was not supported by legal provisions. They expressed concern about the court overstepping its authority to grant such relief.
