Justice Jamal Mandokhail.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has released Justice Jamal Mandokhail’s dissenting opinion in the reserved seats case, in which he rejected the majority ruling that had partially accepted several appeals.
His 12-page judgment, uploaded to the court’s website, restates his earlier position granting 39 reserved seats while challenging the legality of the majority’s approach toward 41 others.
Justice Mandokhail said the majority decision regarding the 41 seats was incorrect, arguing the court lacked the authority to declare those candidates independent. He wrote that no judicial forum, including the Supreme Court, can alter the political affiliation declared by any candidate.
Furthermore, he stressed, the matter of the 41 individuals had not been pending before the bench. He said the majority judgment, therefore, exceeded the court’s jurisdiction and addressed issues never brought before it by any party.
Reaffirming his stance, Justice Mandokhail said his original decision regarding the allocation of 39 seats remained intact and legally sound. He held that the majority ventured beyond the limits of the case record, creating consequences for candidates who had not sought any relief and whose political positions could not be reassigned by judicial order.
In his dissenting note, Justice Mandokhail also addressed the composition of the bench that heard the matter. He wrote that the Judicial Commission faced no restriction in nominating any judge of the Supreme Court, including those who had been part of the earlier bench that heard the main reserved seats case.
He said there was no reason for excluding those judges solely because the matter related once again to reserved seats. He stated that he had formally proposed in the Judicial Commission that all such judges be included in the bench for the review, 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 consistency in constitutional adjudication. Justice Mandokhail emphasised that the Commission possessed the lawful authority to make such nominations, and that his proposal had aimed to ensure transparency and institutional confidence.
