<\/p>\n
ISLAMABAD: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has released a detailed dissent in the reserved seats case, stating that the ruling on 41 candidates overstepped constitutional powers and rested on factual inaccuracies.<\/p>\n
"The judgment under review, to this extent, is in excess of the power granted to the Supreme Court by Article 187,” he wrote in the dissenting note released a day ago.<\/p>\n
Justice Mandokhail had served on the now-defunct Constitutional Bench, which ended after the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which overturned the top court’s decision, by a majority of seven judges, granting Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats.<\/p>\n
The apex court stressed that all 41 candidates were independent when they joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) under constitutional provisions, and their status had never been a pending matter before the Court.<\/p>\n
He observed that neither any authority nor the court has the power to change the status of any candidate.<\/p>\n
"We have already held that no authority including the Court has the power to declare a candidate independent or change his status contrary to his declaration,” he wrote.<\/p>\n
The jurist declared that granting the candidates 15 days to join another party was both unconstitutional and unsupported by the record. "This relief is an error of the Constitution and law, as well as an error of facts floating on the surface of the record,” the dissent stated.<\/p>\n
The judge also argued that Article 187 does not grant "unlimited powers”, adding that complete justice applies only to matters actually under adjudication. He warned that reclassifying the 41 members as independents amounted to judicial overreach.<\/p>\n
Justice Mandokhail said no evidence existed to establish any PTI affiliation of the candidates before they joined SIC. He further noted that the majority ignored Article 51(6)(d), which governs the allocation of reserved seats.<\/p>\n
Once a returned candidate joins a political party, the dissent added, they cannot leave it without facing consequences under Article 63-A, including loss of the seat. "No authority, including the Supreme Court, can alter the status of a vote,” he wrote.<\/p>\n
Pointing towards the flaws in the CB’s ruling, Justice Mandokhail concluded that the judgment under review cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n