Naveed Qazi
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Reserved Seats Sparks Controversy and Dissent. The Reserved Seats issue, which pertains to the allocation of parliamentary seats for women and minorities in Pakistan, has been a topic of heated debate and legal contention.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Reserved Seats issue has caused a stir across the nation, sparking significant controversy and drawing robust dissenting opinions from two Supreme Court justices – a rare occurrence in our judicial history. The tensions between institutions and the divisions within the Supreme Court have become increasingly pronounced, especially as the Chief Justice, who was directly involved in the ECP Clarification case, has expressed concerns about his court’s handling of the case.
The primary criticism against the majority ruling, as expressed in the dissenting opinions of Justice Amin Ud Din and Justice Naeem Akhtar, is that the Court has effectively reinterpreted the Constitution and overstepped its jurisdiction by providing relief that was not requested. The dissenting opinions, which are significant in their critique, argue that the principal beneficiary of this ruling, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf, was not involved in the proceedings before the Election Commission, the Peshawar High Court, or the Supreme Court itself. Additionally, the Court addressed the entitlements of candidates who were not heard and did not contest their affiliation with the Sunni Ittehad Council, further complicating the matter.
The extensive judgment written by the incoming Chief Justice, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, presents a novel and somewhat unconventional rationale for the Supreme Court’s decision to extend its jurisdiction beyond the appeal’s parameters. It argues that the Supreme Court has the authority to bypass procedural obstacles in the pursuit of complete justice, invoking Article 187 of the Constitution to transcend the limitations set forth by Article 185. However, this reasoning is fraught with inherent contradictions, as achieving complete justice under Article 187 cannot be interpreted in total isolation from the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The procedural framework that the Court is mandated to follow is crucial for establishing binding legal precedents and ensuring certainty and continuity in the legal system. It is this framework that ensures the integrity of the legal system. While Article 187 grants the Court the authority to issue directions for complete justice, it must not undermine the appellate jurisdiction or transform it in a way that was not intended by the legislature. Furthermore, any direction under Article 187 must be directly related to the relief sought or connected to the matters under consideration before the Court.
Historically, the Supreme Court has invoked Article 187 primarily in cases adjudicated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, and mainly in instances where no specific legal provisions adequately addressed the issue at hand. However, in the reserved seats case, there is no such deficiency in procedural or substantive legal provisions, as both the Election Act and relevant Constitutional stipulations clearly delineate the appropriate course of action for the Supreme Court in this matter.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the reserved seats case, which delves into matters beyond the fundamental question presented to the Court, has raised concerns about the potential implications of such decisions. The approach of deciding when to comply with procedural norms and when to disregard them is inherently arbitrary and risks undermining the establishment of binding judicial precedents. This approach could lead to the evasion of procedural or constitutional constraints whenever it is convenient, ultimately facing scrutiny for arising from misguided perceptions or popular sentiment.
