LAHORE: Information Minister Attaullah Tarar has said the constitutional and legal points raised by two dissenting judges in their minority judgement of the SIC reserved seats case have put a “big question” mark on the legal framework and needed to be answered.

The minister was addressing a press conference on Sunday, a day after Supreme Court justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, issued their dissenting note in the case where their majority colleagues decided that PTI was entitled to reserved seats.

On July 12, eight out of the 13 judges, who were part of a larger bench, decided that PTI was eligible to receive reserved seats for women and non-Muslims by declaring it to be a parliamentary party.

The minister said that justices Khan and Afghan, who disagreed with the majority judgement, issued detailed dissenting notes, but the eight judges had yet to outline the reasons for their decision. Their detailed verdict has not been issued even after more than 15 days, he added. “Usually a detailed verdict comes within 15 days after a decision is announced.”

Tarar concerned by delay in detailed order, fixing of review pleas

The minister claimed that the July 12 decision was not in line with some articles of the Constitution relating to the reserved seats. Mr Tarar added that PTI members had been provided relief, but those lawmakers elected on reserved seats, who had taken oaths of their membership, were removed.

The information minister claimed that the due procedure was followed in the election of those lawmakers who have now been stripped of their membership.

The dissenting note stated that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) had not taken part in general elections as a political party while its chairman also contested polls as an independent candidate.

“How could a party which had no existence in the parliament be given reserved seats?” the minister questioned. Mr Tarar also said that SIC’s constitution stated that no minority member could join it, so it was not eligible for those reserved seats.

He further said that PML-N and PPP had filed a review petition against the order, but it had not been fixed for hearing till now.

Published in Dawn, August 5th, 2024