SC releases detailed decision on reserved seats, criticises dissent as ‘impolite’ 

The Supreme Court issued a detailed judgment regarding the reserved seats case, with the majority decision penned by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. The court declared the Peshawar High Court’s verdict null and void, stating that the Election Commission’s decision of 1st March is unconstitutional and holds no legal standing.

In its detailed judgment, the court reaffirmed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) status as a political party, asserting that the denial of an election symbol does not invalidate a party’s right to contest elections. It clarified that neither the Constitution nor any law prevents a political party from fielding candidates in elections.

The court further stated that PTI had secured seats in both the National and Provincial Assemblies during the 2024 general elections. PTI members-elect are required to submit signed statements within 15 days.

PTI entitled to reserved seats in the National Assembly

The judgment emphasised the importance of transparent elections for ensuring democracy and the will of the people. It stated that PTI is entitled to specific reserved seats in the National Assembly, directing the Election Commission to notify PTI’s candidates for these seats. The court highlighted that the people’s vote is integral to democratic governance, with democracy’s strength resting in the hands of the electorate.

The court also commented on the dissenting notes issued by two fellow judges on 3rd August. It stated that while it is legitimate for bench members to disagree on matters of fact or law, the manner in which Justices Aminuddin and Naeem Afghan expressed their dissent was “impolite” and did not reflect well on them.

Dissenting judges’ conduct criticised

The judgment acknowledged that while fellow judges may comment on others’ opinions and provide reasons for their disagreements, the manner in which the two judges disagreed was deemed inappropriate. The criticism focused on the way in which the judges handled the majority decision, specifically regarding the Election Commission’s role and their refusal to adhere to the court’s ruling.

The court emphasised the importance of the Election Commission as a guarantor of the democratic process, stating that transparent elections are essential for the will of the people. It criticised the dissenting judges for undermining the integrity of the judiciary, labelling their actions as an attempt to obstruct the judicial process.

Courts must rise above political interests

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the duty of the courts to safeguard voters’ rights and ensure that those elected by the public are able to serve transparently. The court underscored the importance of remaining impartial, free from political bias, and focused solely on legal matters to protect the rights of voters.

The decision further elaborated that political parties, rather than individuals, hold the right to nominate candidates for reserved seats. It noted that the issue of the responsibility of the courts in election disputes had not been raised during the arguments.

Translation of majority judgment into Urdu ordered

The Supreme Court also ordered that the majority judgment be translated into Urdu and made part of the case record.