data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0e7e7/0e7e739fb450c40c23873f31741a8aedae9987d3" alt="Justice Yahya Afridi issues dissenting note in reserved seats case"
Justice Yahya Afridi issues dissenting note in reserved seats case
”
LAHORE (92 News) – Justice Yahya Afridi of the Supreme Court (SC) has issued his dissenting note in the judgement of the reserved seats case.
In his dissenting note, Justice Yahya Afridi said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is a political party and is also eligible for certain seats, but it did not become a party in the case before the court.
Justice Yahya Afridi said that the case had been under hearing in the court since June 3, adding that PTI’s request to become a party in the case came on June 26.
He said that PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar filed a petition for assistance in the case, but the PTI did not seek any declaration in its favour.
Justice Yahya Afridi wrote in the dissenting note that the Election Commission should conduct a review of the notification about the reserved seats and pronounce a judgement within seven days after hearing parties in the case.
Also Read: ECP approaches SC for guidelines regarding reserved seats
It is to be noted here that the majority judges of the Supreme Court Monday issued a detailed judgment in the reserved seats case, in which the Election Commission was once again ordered to notify the PTI candidates on reserved seats.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah penned the 70-page verdict, which aims at clarifying legal principles and procedures involved in electoral issues, reinforcing the importance of a fair and transparent electoral process.
The detailed verdict annulled the decision of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), and it also declared the March 1 decision of the election commission to be in conflict with the Constitution.
The judgement pointed out the major stake in an election lies with the public, adding that an election dispute is fundamentally different from other civil disputes.
It highlighted the case before the court was not an ordinary one but was a matter of high public importance.
It stated the matter was decided not on the basis of assumptions, but it was allowed to be settled in a concrete way.
”