The dissenting note of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel in the Supreme Court's suo motu case on the issue of delay in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections has opened a new debate in the country's political scene.


March 28, 2023

The two judges of the Supreme Court delivered their 27-page dissenting note for the judgment dismissing the petitions in the case related to provincial assembly elections and the Lahore and Peshawar High Courts in this regard within three days of the pending petition. Ordered to decide.

Many questions arose after the two judges revised the Chief Justice's powers in a dissenting note. What does this decision mean? Will there be any direct consequences? Will this controversial remark increase pressure on the Chief Justice of Pakistan? And in light of this decision, what will be the future of PTI's election petition?


What was said in the decision of two judges of the Supreme Court?

In a detailed decision, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Mandukhel said the four judges rejected the suo motu notice, the order of the bench is 3-4.

The judgment said that the 'one man power show' powers of the Chief Justice need to be reviewed, the Supreme Court cannot be left to the decisions of just one person, and the time has come for the 'one man show' of the Chief Justice's office. The powers of the High Court should be reviewed and the Full Court will have to formulate a policy on the power of self-notification. The Supreme Court has completely failed in the structure of its powers.

The judgment further states that the Chief Justice of Pakistan has broad powers to issue ex officio notices, constitute benches, and settle cases. And the unbridled use of power by the Chief Justice leads to criticism of the Supreme Court and loss of respect for it.

The judgment said that the decision of two of our judges is a continuation of the decision of Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Manullah, the bench cannot be changed after the cause list of the case is issued.

Two judges said that “if the court becomes a political institution, it will lose its credibility in the eyes of the people. It must be ensured that the power of the Parliament is not limited by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The ruling states that the March 1 election is a 3-4 decision. of the trial court in the case of automatic notification, and the petitions relating to the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections are dismissed.

It may be recalled that on March 1, a five-judge bench headed by the Supreme Court ordered elections to be held in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the Spontaneous Notification case.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Mandukhel said in the judgment that the time has come to modify the jurisdiction of 184 three.

Both judges said that two judges had already decided to reject the motions in the election notice itself, why is there no court ruling? The reasons must be given here to be part of the record because all four of us think that this decision is four to 3, while the other three judges hold it to be three to two. Because of this dissent, the Chief Justice is unable to render judgment, we hold that the four to three judgments dismissing the suo motu case are binding.

However, in the remarks of Justice Mandukhela during the hearing, in audios circulating on social media, there were some reservations about two judges, Justice Ejazul Ahsan, and Justice Mazahir Akbar Naqvi, who were included in the bench, followed by Justice Ejazul Ahsan and Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar. Naqvi was separated from the bench.

While Justice Athar Minullah and Justice Yahya Afridi also excused themselves from hearing the case, the case was then heard by a five-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

After concluding the hearing of this case, the Supreme Court ordered that the elections be held in 90 days. The five-member bench issued the decision by a majority of 2-3.


"The Chief Justice will have to fix this soon"

Legal expert and former Attorney General Irfan Qadir, commenting on the decision of two judges of the Supreme Court, said that the decision of the judges ultimately determined that the four judges of the seven-judge panel had issued a decision which the Supreme Court could not take note of and Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal could not exercise his authority in this manner.

He noted that the act or mistake that tarnished the Chief Justice's reputation was the creation of a five-judge bench in his name and the two-judge Chief Justice (Justice Athar Minillah and Justice Yahya Afridi) who made the decision. previously given, they could not be removed from the bench or required to mention their decision.

He stated that in his opinion it was a four to three decision and the Chief Justice was ignoring the opinion of his fellow judges.

Talking about the direct impact of this decision, Irfan Qadir said that the Chief Justice should immediately admit his mistake and correct it. He said judges appointed in such a high legal institution of the country should have the ability to understand where the mistake has been made. This mistake must be corrected, otherwise, not only the judiciary, but the entire nation will have to bear the consequences.

According to Irfan Qadir, this decision will not increase pressure on the Chief Justice, but the behavior of the Chief Justice was increasing pressure on all judges, so the judges had to write in the decision that the "one-man show" powers should be reviewed.

He said that even in the constitution, the Supreme Court is a legal body composed of all the judges and it is not the name of one individual.

Giving a legal opinion on PTI's request for self-notification regarding the elections, he said that after this decision, the request has no legal status, but an attempt will be made to use it politically.

He said that this is how judges should stay away from politics.

"It's an illegal decision"

Commenting on the decision of two judges of the Supreme Court, legal expert, and former Attorney General Anwar Mansoor said that it is incorrect to call the decision a four to three decision as the two judges had already apologized before the bench, and if they did so. If something is written, it cannot be included in the decision of the senate.

He said that this is an illegal decision because the two honorable judges were talking about reviewing the powers of spontaneous notification, but the power of spontaneous notification rests with the Chief Justice and there are no rules in this regard. Therefore, what the two judges said has no legal basis.

Anwar Mansoor said that this decision will not have any impact on the political and constitutional scenario of Pakistan.