Justice Jamal Mandokhail.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has released the dissenting opinion of Justice Jamal Mandokhail in the reserved seats case, rejecting the majority decision that had partially accepted several appeals.
His 12-page judgment, uploaded to the court’s website, reiterates his 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 wrong and argued that the court lacked authority to declare these candidates independent. He wrote that no judicial forum, including the Supreme Court, can change the political affiliation declared by any candidate.
He also emphasized that the case of the 41 people had not been considered by the court. He said the majority judgment therefore exceeded the court’s jurisdiction and dealt with issues never brought before it by any party.
Justice Mandokhail reaffirmed his position and said that his original decision regarding the allocation of 39 seats remained intact and legally sound. He believed the majority ventured beyond the bounds of the record, creating consequences for candidates who had sought no relief and whose political positions could not be reassigned by court order.
In his dissenting note, Justice Mandokhail also spoke the composition of the bench hearing the case. He wrote that the Judicial Commission did not face any constraints in appointing any judges to the Supreme Court, including those who had been part of the earlier bench that heard the case on the main reserved seats.
He said there was no reason to disqualify these judges simply because the case again related to reserved seats. He stated that he had formally proposed in the Judicial Commission that all such judges should be admitted to the trial bench, but the majority of the commission did not accept his recommendation.
According to him, including the original bench members would have ensured continuity and upheld the principles of coherence in constitutional judgment. Justice Mandokhail emphasized that the Commission had the legal authority to make such nominations and that his proposal was aimed at ensuring transparency and institutional trust.
