ISLAMABAD: After Justice Athar Minallah made it clear in his detailed order that “he had not recused nor had any reason to separate himself from the case, and that the case was dismissed by a vote of 4 to 3 in favor,” the controversy over the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the elections in Punjab took a new turn.
Punjab and KP elections suo motu Justice Minallah stated that he did not “hesitate in concurring with the decision” and that his brief reasoning was “persuasive” in support of Justice Yahya Afridi’s note regarding the dismissal of the petition.
“I had kept my note in the request dated 24.02.2023, in which I had repeated my choice,” the creator composed. I have had the opportunity to read my learned brothers’ in-depth arguments. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJs, have recorded, and I agree with their conclusion, particularly with regard to the final outcome of the petitions and the suo motu assumption of jurisdiction by a majority of 4 to 3, as this was the agreement at the meeting that took place in the anteroom on February 27, 2023. In his detailed note, the judge stated, “It is noted that I had not recused myself nor had any reason to dissociate myself.”
On the advice of a Supreme Court (SC) bench hearing the Ghulam Mehmood Dogar case, Justice Minallah was one of the judges who rejected the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial’s suo motu notice regarding the delay in elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
A nine-member bench had previously been established by CJP Bandial to hear the suo motu case.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Yahya Afridi, and Justice Minallah had dismissed the case, while two of the nine judges had removed themselves from the matter.
Justice Minallah emphasized in his note that for the judiciary to function effectively, “public trust and confidence” are “sacrosanct.”
“Unprecedented charged and polarized political milieu” since April of last year, when the former National Assembly deputy speaker dissolved the lower house, the judge noted. “Article 63-A polarized political stakeholders”
The judge said that Imran Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI),’s decision to leave the National Assembly had “profound consequences.” He mentioned that President Arif Alvi used that decision to use the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to figure out how to interpret Article 63-A.
The verdict in the Article 63-A case regarding not counting votes had a “profound” effect in a “highly charged and polarized political atmosphere,” according to the former chief justice of the Islamabad High Court. He likewise said that the case audit was all the while being finished.
“The polarized political stakeholders were far-reaching for the effects of the interpretation of Article 63A on the ensuing events” was Justice Minallah’s statement. Punjab and KP elections suo motu