PML-N leverages judges' dissent on key verdict

Party leaders assert dissenting note raises legal red flags that need to be addressed

LAHORE:

Worried about the PTI regaining its footing in parliament, PML-N leaders, Federal Information Minister Ata Tarar, and Nawaz Sharif's close confidant Senator Irfan Siddiqui, have stated that the dissenting notes by two honourable judges prove that the relief granted to PTI was not in line with the Constitution.

The reserved seat decision, which not only brought PTI back into the assembly but also restored its rightful share of seats, was a bitter pill for the government to swallow. It underscored that there was no wiggle room in the constitutional framework for the judges' summer vacation.

As the decision undermines the two-thirds majority of the ruling alliance and puts PTI ahead of other parties in the National Assembly, Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar said it was seen as one-sided by many, adding it was contradictory to the Constitution.

He argued that it would be a setback for the rule of law, legalise floor crossing, and suspend Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

Tarar pointed out that the two honourable judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, questioned in their dissenting notes why a detailed verdict of the case had not been announced within 15 days.

"Usually, a detailed verdict comes within 15 days after a decision is announced."

Attaullah Tarar noted that some articles of the constitution were related to reserved seats and that the decision in the reserved seats case was not in line with these articles. He further pointed out that the dissenting notes mentioned that PTI was not a party to this case, yet the court went beyond its jurisdiction to provide relief to PTI, suspending Articles 51, 63, and 106 of the constitution. PTI was not a petitioner, yet 81 of its members were granted relief, Tarar said, adding that those elected on reserved seats and who had taken their oaths were removed.

He stated that if members of the Sunni Ittehad Council sit with PTI, it would violate Article 62(1)(f). He explained that the dissenting judges noted that the Sunni Ittehad Council did not participate in the general elections as a political party, and its chairman contested as an independent candidate.

He said that two honourable judges of the SC had raised constitutional and legal red flags in their dissenting notes, adding that these points were a huge question mark on the legal framework and needed to be addressed.On the other hand, Senator Irfan Siddiqui stated that the majority judgment of the apex court in PTI's reserved seats case flies in the face of the constitution and is controversial.

Siddiqui referred to the dissenting notes and said that the judgment exceeded the court's jurisdiction.

"It is up to the judges who would one day be appointed chief justice to decide whether they can carry the guilt for unconstitutional decision or to reconsider the order," the senator said in a statement.