Federal government has voiced concerns over the delay in the issuance of the detailed verdict of the Supreme Court’s short order on the allocation of reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), calling on the apex court to disclose the dissenting notes of two judges.
“The detailed verdict of July 12 verdict hasn’t been issued even after 15 days,” Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said while talking to the media in Lahore on Sunday.
Referring to the 29-page dissenting note written by Justices Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, who were part of the full court bench, Tarar said that the issues raised in the said document should be duly discussed.
“It’s imperative that the points raised by the [two] judges are [duly] answered,” the minister said.
The aforesaid judges’ dissenting note pointed out that the SIC did not contest the February 8 nationwide polls as a political party, whereas, its chairman had also taken part as an independent candidate in the electoral event.
They also opined that for creating and carving out relief in these proceedings for PTI, the court “would have to travel beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 175 and 185 of the Constitution and would also have to suspend Articles 51, 106 and 63 of the Constitution and section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 along with the relevant rules”.
“We would also have to insert instead of Articles 51, 106 and Section 104 (mentioned supra). Such articles and sections therein in substitution and in consonance with the relief granted through the majority judgement” read the dissenting note.
Justices Khan and Afghan also highlighted the review petitions filed in the SC may be rendered infructuous due to delay in the detailed verdict of the July 12 order.
Building his argument on the judges’ take on the said issue, the information minister questioned if the apex court’s ruling would be used as a justification to allow floor crossing and change of political affiliation.
Claiming that the SC ruling derogated from constitutional provisions, Tarar lamented the legal and constitutional ambiguity and said that if one-sided relief is granted it would deal a blow to the Constitution and the law of the land.
