On Tuesday, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa released a detailed dissenting note regarding the reserved seats case, criticizing the “constitutional violations and illegalities” evident in the majority’s short order issued on July 12, 2024.
In his note, Justice Isa pointed to several documents, including the majority’s detailed judgment from September 23, 2024, and clarifications from September 14 and October 18, 2024. He emphasized that the top court’s July 12 verdict on the reserved seats case is not binding because the review petitions are still pending and not scheduled for a hearing.
Justice Isa expressed hope that his fellow judges in the majority would “reflect and correct their mistakes” to ensure governance in line with the Constitution. This note came shortly after eight judges reaffirmed that amendments made by Parliament to the Elections Act do not have retroactive effects, angering the Chief Justice.
He noted that review petitions against the majority’s short order were not addressed due to being outvoted on the committee formed under the SC Practice and Procedure Act, 2023. Justice Isa criticized the majority for creating their own “virtual court” and for allowing certain applications from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to be heard exclusively in chambers, which he argued was beyond constitutional or legal bounds.
He insisted that no party had suggested the actions taken by the majority and that neither the short order nor the subsequent judgment provided a rationale for these unprecedented decisions.
Justice Isa further stated that the majority had effectively legislated without constitutional authority and that their actions disregarded established court precedents. He indicated that the non-conclusion of appeals meant that no binding decision had been rendered under Article 189 of the Constitution, which also implies that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated.
Additionally, he raised concerns about processes followed for an order published on the Supreme Court website on September 14, which occurred without his knowledge and bypassed standard procedures.
Ultimately, Justice Isa concluded that the majority’s clarifications could not be classified as a legitimate Supreme Court decision and therefore do not need to be adhered to. The dissenting note, spanning 14 pages, also noted a lack of formal press release from the court’s Public Relations Department regarding these developments.
