Pakistan
CJP Isa says implementation of reserved seats case is not binding
According to CJP Isa, the 8-judge majority decision contains errors
Islamabad: The Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa has said that the implementation of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the reserved seats case was not binding since the appeals against it were not decided.
The CJP added 14-pages supplementary note, emphasising his duty to point out constitutional violations in the judgement.
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.
He noted that Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Muneeb Akhtar opposed his view and that the appeals in the reserved seats case remained unresolved.
According to CJP Isa, the 8-judge majority decision contains errors, and its implementation is not binding. He criticised the establishment of a “virtual court” by the majority judges as unconstitutional.
“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.”
CJP Isa said he was pointing out what he said were the “constitutional violations and illegalities” in the July 12 short order, the detailed verdict and the subsequent two clarifications.
CJP Isa said, “The majority set up its own virtual court, permitted the making of ‘an appropriate application’ by the ECP and PTI, and directed that such appropriate application would only be heard by them whilst cloistered in chambers. In doing this the majority of the honourable judges effectively legislated, because neither the Constitution nor any law permits what they did.”