A 12-page minority judgement authored by Justice Jamal Mandokhel in the Supreme Court’s reserved seats case has challenged the majority ruling, declaring that the court overstepped its authority by declaring 41 candidates independent.
The decision restores the disputed seats to the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and reaffirms his original stance.
Justice Mandokhel maintained his earlier decision regarding the reserved seats, stating that 41 seats must be returned to the SIC, consistent with his original finding. The judge emphasized that the majority verdict on these seats was “not in accordance with the Constitution and the facts.”
He noted that the court had no authority to declare the 41 candidates independent and that such a move amounted to changing their political affiliation — something only the candidates or electoral laws can determine.
‘Court exceeded its authority’
In his written verdict, Justice Mandokhel stressed that the matter concerning the 41 candidates was never pending before the court, making the majority’s intervention an “excess of authority.”
He observed that turning these seats into a fresh review — despite no formal review petition — was improper and beyond judicial powers. He reiterated that the July 12, 2024 decision, which granted the candidates time to decide their party affiliation, was incorrectly altered by the majority bench.
The majority judgement, authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, had previously declared the 41 candidates independent. Justice Mandokhel’s minority opinion challenges this foundational conclusion, arguing that political affiliation cannot be redefined by judicial order.
He wrote that the court cannot intrude into political processes in this manner, nor can it impose independence on candidates who had not been before the bench for such determination.
Restoration of seats to Sunni Ittehad Council
Justice Mandokhel concluded by restoring the 41 reserved seats in favour of the Sunni Ittehad Council, aligning the outcome with his earlier position on the allocation of 39–49 reserved seats.
The minority verdict marks a significant internal disagreement within the Supreme Court over judicial authority, constitutional boundaries, and the court’s role in electoral party matters.
