ISLAMABAD: The controversy over the Supreme Court verdict on Punjab elections took another turn when Justice Athar Minullah, in his detailed order, said the case was dismissed 4 to 3 and clarified that “he resigned. Neither gave nor had any reason to separate himself.” from the case.
Justice Minullah said he agreed with Justice Yahya Afridi’s note on dismissing the petition and his reasoning in the short order was “persuasive” so he had “no hesitation in concurring in the judgment”.
“I have reiterated my decision by recording my note in the order dated 24.02.2023. I have had the honor of perusing the detailed arguments filed by my learned brothers Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandukhel, JJ and I Agree with his views, particularly on the finality of the petitions and the presumption of jurisdiction of the Court. Majority of 4 to 3 as this was the consensus at the meeting held in the anteroom on 27.02.2023. This note “It has been done that I had left no reason to recuse myself and there was no reason for it,” the judge said in his detailed note.
Justice Minullah was among the judges who were heard by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial in the Supreme Court hearing Ghulam Mehmood Dogar on the delay in elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab. Rejected the suo motu notice taken on the advice of the bench. Case.
Earlier, Chief Justice Bandyal constituted a nine-member bench to hear the Spontaneous Notice case.
Two of the nine judges recused themselves from the case while four Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhil, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Manullah dismissed the case.
In his note, Justice Minullah stressed that “public trust and confidence” are “sacred” for the judiciary to function effectively.
“The legality of a court’s decision depends only on the public’s belief that the court is an independent, impartial, and apolitical arbiter of disputes between political stakeholders,” the judge said. He also explained that the issue of elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is political and the decision is being taken by the High Court.
‘Article 63-A polarised political stakeholders’
The judge noted that the Supreme Court has been at the center of an “unprecedentedly charged and polarized political environment” since April last year when the former deputy speaker of the National Assembly dissolved the lower house.
The judge noted that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan’s decision to quit the National Assembly had “profound consequences”. He noted that along with this decision, President Arif Alvi requested the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction to interpret Article 63-A.
The former chief justice of the Islamabad High Court said the Article 63-A decision to ignore the votes had a “profound” impact in the “highly charged and polarized political environment”. He also noted that the review of the case is also pending.
“The impact of the interpretation of Article 63A on future events was far-reaching for polarized political stakeholders,” said Justice Manullah.
Misappropriation of suo moto
Justice Minullah argued that while Article 184(3) was inserted in the Constitution to “ensure protection of the fundamental rights of the weak, vulnerable and backward classes,” the jurisdiction “removes elected Prime Ministers and Ratification was used to legitimize military occupation.”
He then referred to the cases of Begum Nusrat Bhutto v Chief of Army Staff and Federation of Pakistan, Zafar Ali Shah v General Pervez Musharraf – which were used to remove elected prime ministers – and mentioned that Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani and Nawaz Sharif were also disqualified. Office under Article 184(3).
Such moves in the realm of politics and unsystematic invocation of jurisdiction, the justices said, “invited criticism on public perception which was not really conducive to public trust and confidence”.
Responsibilities of the SC
He further clarified that the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) rests with the “Supreme Court” – which collectively means the CJP and the judges of the court.
“The power under Article 184(3) is inherent and vested exclusively in the Supreme Court”. He said that it is the duty of the Chief Justice to exercise jurisdiction in the best interest of the Supreme Court.
Further, emphasizing the responsibility of the Chief Justice and the courts to ensure that the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is exercised to promote and preserve public confidence, he wrote that The CJP’s discretionary powers are not “unfettered”.
The justices also stressed that the court “should not allow any stakeholder to use its forum to advance its political strategy or gain an advantage over other competitors.”
If political stakeholders are encouraged to take their disputes to the courts despite the institutions and forums that the Constitution has created for the express purpose of resolving disputes, not only Parliament is weakened, but also the public perception of the judiciary. There are negative effects.
Reasons explained
Summarizing the various reasons for dismissing the case, the justice wrote that since the Lahore High Court had already ruled on the delay in the elections and the Peshawar High Court was hearing the case, the petitions should not have automatic jurisdiction. . Lest it interfere with the execution of the decision of the Lahore High Court and the proceedings pending in the Peshawar High Court.
He also said that if any party is not satisfied with the decisions of the High Courts, they will be free to appeal to the Supreme Court.
“A consent at this stage would be premature and would unduly affect public confidence in the independence and impartiality of this court,” the dissenting note read.
Moreover, Justice Minullah reiterated that the “manner and manner” in which the proceedings were initiated had “unnecessarily” exposed the court to political controversy.
In addition to eroding public trust, a suo moto assumption “may raise concerns in the mind of an informed outside observer,” he explained, adding that it would also affect the rights of litigants whose cases are under investigation. are pending.
Finally, he emphasized the “behavior of political stakeholders” that had made matters worse.
‘Toxic’
Raising questions on the dissolution of assemblies earlier this year, the justices said the country’s political environment was “toxic” and asked whether the court saw it as “advancing a political strategy or encouraging undemocratic practices.” should go”.
“We cannot erase judgments from law reports but will at least try to restore public confidence and trust so that the past is somewhat forgotten.
When politicians do not approach the appropriate forums and bring their disputes to the courts, the former may win or lose the case, but inevitably the court loses,” he concluded.
