Majority verdict in reserved seats case was incorrect, rules Justice Mandokhail

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Mandokhail has issued a 12-page decision allowing partial appeals against the majority ruling in the reserved seats case.

In his ruling, Justice Mandokhail maintained his original decision on 39 reserved seats but found the majority decision concerning 41 seats to be incorrect. He said the court lacked authority to declare the 41 candidates independent, noting that the decision was not in accordance with the Constitution and the facts of the case.

“The court cannot change the political affiliation of any candidate,” Justice Mandokhail wrote, describing the majority verdict on the 41 seats as ‘exceeding its authority’.

The ruling effectively changes the status of the 41 seats from the earlier majority decision to a review, while leaving the decisions on the remaining reserved seats intact.

Earlier in October, the Supreme Court issued the detailed judgment in the reserved seats case, ruling that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) received relief without being a party to the case, which the court said could not be sustained. The apex court emphasised that it has the authority to interpret the Constitution but not to rewrite it.

The 47-page verdict, authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, included dissenting notes from Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, while Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself. The court clarified that review petitions can only be heard by a constitutional bench.

The judgment noted that PTI was not a party before any forum, the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of Pakistan, or the Peshawar High Court, and therefore could not be granted relief. It also highlighted that none of the 80 independent candidates declared by returning officers had claimed to be PTI nominees entitled to reserved seats.

The Supreme Court said that “complete justice” cannot be used to justify rewriting the law, and criticised procedural delays caused by some parties. It clarified that PTI was never barred from contesting elections, and that constitutional timelines can only be amended through parliamentary action.