The dissenting opinion of Judge Athar Minallah in the election date case

Athar Minallah, a Supreme Court justice.

In Islamabad on monday a nine member supreme court bench was hearing an election date suo motu over the delay of a date for elections in Punjab and Khyber pakhtunkhwa. Justice Athar Minallah was one of the four judges from the top court to withdraw from the hearing.

The Supreme Court’s hearings were supposed to start at 11 a.m., but they were postponed purportedly because the bench was dissolved in response to the SC’s decision from today, which was given on February 23.

Judge Minallah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Yahya Afridi requested a new bench in their dissenting notes, leading to the court’s reconstitution.

A new five-person bench, made up of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, was established.

In his dissenting remark, Judge Minallah agreed with Justice Yahya Afridi that Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial’s judgment “does not seem to be compatible with the processes and the order indicated” in open court.

The SC judgment stated that while concerns about the constitutional legitimacy of the dissolution of the provincial assembly of Punjab and KP cannot be overlooked, the issues submitted before them cannot be evaluated in isolation. everyday wins 3m

Were they dismissed before the time allotted under the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Constitution (referred to as “the Constitution”) had expired in contravention of the plan and principles of constitutional democracy?

The issue before us is undoubtedly premature because it is pending before a provincial Constitutional Court, as noted in the opinion of my learned brother Yahya Afridi, J., Justice Minallah stated that the questions regarding the legality of the dissolution involve far more serious violations of fundamental rights.

Remembering the original hearing of the case, he said that he had suggested that during the hearings, the legitimacy of the various provincial legislatures’ dissolution be addressed as well before the subject brought before the court was taken into consideration.

The Honorable Chief Justice, who was presiding over the bench, had given his or her assent to add the suggested topics for debate by assuming and employing the suo motu authority afforded by Article 184. (3) The inclusion of the requested extra issues for consideration was correctly recognized and declared when pronouncing the decision in open Court since the knowledgeable brothers on the bench did not protest. Because of the principles emphasized by this Court in suo motu case No. 4 of 2021 (PLD 2022 SC 306), the Hon. Chief Justice was happy to assume/invoke the jurisdiction.

The following questions were then jotted down by Judge Minallah: Is a chief minister’s authority to recommend dissolving a provincial parliament absolute and exempt from constitutional requirements?

Is a chief minister required to provide such counsel based only on his judgment, or may he do so at the request of another person?

If such a chief minister’s counsel is determined to be unconstitutional for whatever reason, may the provincial parliament that was dissolved as a result be reinstated?

Judge Minallah said that the supreme court’s obligation to uphold, defend, and interpret the Constitution includes both prerogative and duty. He emphasized that this duty is onerous.

He said that if the court reads the constitution i =n this way. it will have a serious effects on people’s lives in present and in future
. The Constitution is an organic document that was designed with all ages in mind, the judge said.

According to Judge Minallah, the Constitution’s drafters granted this Court an exceptional jurisdiction under Article 184(3), and how this authority is to be applied is in and of itself a matter of enormous public significance.

When asserting authority, great caution must be used. The makeup of this Court is outlined in Article 176 of the Constitution. According to me, it is implied in the text of Article 184(3) that the Whole Court must consider and hear any cases involving the granted exceptional original jurisdiction. The issue involving the violation and interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by a Full Court to guarantee public trust in the procedures at hand and bearing [sic] in mind the significance of the matters posed for our consideration. It is also important to know how to read the article 184(3) of the constitution