• Write to CJP, Dept failures not to publish verdict on the SC website
• He says that the ECP acted as playing the party against PTI in the case of the reserved seats
Islamabad: The current crack within the Supreme Court deepened on Friday when Judge Ayesha A. Malik formally complained to the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi about the non -publication of her dissident order in the case of the reserved seats.
Judge Malik, together with Judge Aqed Ahmed Abbasi, had previously dismissed a set of review requests presented by PML-N, PPP and the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP). They declared that the written reasons would be launched shortly. However, although the orders were issued on Thursday, they did not go up to the Supreme Court website.
In a single -page complaint to the CJP, Judge Malik expressed concern that his dissident order, issued at 3:11 pm on Thursday, had not uploaded until Friday morning despite the repeated instructions to the IT department of the Supreme Court.
Judge Malik said he had been informed that the department could not do it. “This lack of compliance by the IT department is unacceptable,” he said. “Therefore, I formally request that the order be loaded on the website of the Supreme Court immediately without any additional delay.”
He also locked the copy of his order and sent the copies of the letter to all the judges of the Supreme Court together with the copy of the order by Judge Aqed Ahmed Abbasi to draw attention to this breach of duty by the department of IT, for an issue that should and was normally attended routinely.
She described the delay as a failure in a routine task that had become “a matter of inexplicable difficulties.”
Judgment
Meanwhile, in his dissident trial, Judge Malik while rejected review requests observed that the ECP and other petitioners could not cross the case under the review jurisdiction.
What is more alarming is the fact that the ECP has not been able to implement the judgment of July 12 in the case of the reserved seats. This option is not available for the ECP, which is legally and constitutionally obliged to implement the trial and for the interpretation given to the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the case of the reserved seats.
The fulfillment of the detailed trial is not a matter of discretion, but of constitutional fidelity, Judge Malik emphasized, and added that in a democracy, the judgments that seek to safeguard electoral equity, political representation and institutional responsibility must have a total effect.
“Not taking into account such decision would not only undermine the authority of the Supreme Court, but also eroding the fundamental values of democracy itself,” said the sentence. She cited the Adil Khan Bazai case in which the order observed that the ECP demonstrated an inclination in favor of a political party and the government, which totally denies its constitutional duty.
“The independence of ECP is essential for the electoral process, which is the very basis of democracy, and the ECP should not be subordinated to political influences; rather, it must continue to be an impartial custodian of democracy,” said Judge Malik.
He also criticized ECP for acting as a competition party against the Sunnita Ittehad and PTI council in the case of reserved seats, observing that their role in the presentation of the request for review reflected political motifs.
Judge Malik also questioned the formation of the current Constitutional Bank of 11 members, noting that five of the 13 original judges, including the same, did not appoint themselves again when they heard the review requests.
He highlighted the concerns about the implementation of article 191a, introduced through the 26th constitutional amendment, which requires the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to nomine the judges for constitutional banks.
He pointed out that the amendment also restructured article 175a, giving political parties a greater influence on the composition of the JCP. The independence of the Judiciary must be safeguarded, and JCP members must act with justice and transparency, he emphasized.
The dissident ruling argued that the Bank of Review requests must include all the available members of the original majority, including its author, to maintain the legitimacy and public confidence in the judicial process.
“In our opinion, the Committee should have asked JCP for the nominations of these judges for the purposes of review requests because the function of this committee is not simply procedure or ministerial, but has a substantive constitutional weight,” the order emphasized.
“The legitimacy of a bank lies not only in the nomination process, but also in the manner of its constitution.”
Posted in Dawn, May 10, 2025
