Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday said that the implementation of the Supreme Court’s July 12 verdict in the reserved seats case was not binding since the appeals against it were not decided.
In its July 12 short order, the Supreme Court had explained that the 41 returned candidates — of the total of 80 MNAs — were and are the returned candidates of the PTI and thus members of its Parliamentary Party in the National Assembly for all constitutional and legal purposes.
The decision was appealed by the PML-N, PPP and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The appeals are still pending and have not been fixed for hearing.
Through its first clarification issued on Sept 14 — the day when the government was supposed to lay the constitutional package in both houses of parliament, but could not do so — the apex court had reprimanded the ECP for not implementing the July 12 judgement in the reserved seats case.
Last week, the Supreme Court reiterated that the amendments made in the Elections Act 2017 could not undo its July 12 judgement. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who led an eight-judge majority in the 13-member full court, explained that amendments made in the Act through the Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 after the release of the July 12 short order “will have no bearing and therefore the ECP was bound to implement the judgement passed by the Supreme Court, in its letter and spirit, without seeking any further clarification”.
This was the second clarification that came from the bench following the first that sparked a minor controversy when CJP Isa asked how it could have been issued when the matter was not on any cause list. This time around as well, the top judge took exception over the issuance of the clarification and summoned an explanation from the respective officers of the court.
In his detailed minority verdict issued today on the July 12 hearing, CJP Isa observed: “In constitutional cases too a judgment can be executed, provided it is finally and conclusively decided. The majority’s short order and the majority’s judgment did not conclude the appeals.
“The well-trodden legal path was abandoned by the majority which created unnecessary and avoidable problems. Since the appeals were not finally decided there was no decision which could be stated to be binding, in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution. Similarly, contempt of court proceedings for any non-compliance of the ‘order of the court’, under Article 204 of the Constitution, cannot be initiated. The right of review, which Article 188 of the Constitution grants, was also effectively negated.”
