Justice Mandokhail Critiques Overreach in Reserved Seats Ruling

Reserved seats ruling is covered in the report below.

ISLAMABAD: In a detailed dissent released on November 18, 2025, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court has raised significant concerns regarding the recent ruling that reclassified 41 cand

ISLAMABAD: In a detailed dissent released on November 18, 2025, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court has raised significant concerns regarding the recent ruling that reclassified 41 candidates on reserved seats. He argues that the court's decision exceeded its constitutional authority and was based on factual inaccuracies.

Reserved seats ruling: Dissenting Opinion on Constitutional Authority

Justice Mandokhail, a former member of the now-defunct Constitutional Bench, asserted that the judgment in question went beyond the powers allotted to the Supreme Court by Article 187 of the Constitution. He stated, "The judgment under review, to this extent, is in excess of the power granted to the Supreme Court by Article 187." This dissent follows the majority decision made by seven judges, which overturned a prior ruling related to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and their allocation of reserved seats.

Reclassification of Candidates

According to Justice Mandokhail, all 41 candidates in question were independent when they aligned with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). He emphasized that this status had not been a subject of litigation and that no authority, including the court, possesses the capability to alter a candidate's declared status. "We have already held that no authority, including the Court, has the power to declare a candidate independent or change his status contrary to his declaration," he remarked.

Legal Implications and Critique

In his dissent, Justice Mandokhail criticized the decision to allow candidates 15 days to join another political party, deeming it unconstitutional and devoid of legal support. He stated, "This relief is an error of the Constitution and law, as well as an error of facts floating on the surface of the record." He reiterated that Article 187 does not confer "unlimited powers" and that complete justice applies strictly to matters under judicial examination.

Furthermore, Justice Mandokhail pointed out the lacking evidence of any PTI affiliation of the candidates before their acceptance into SIC and noted that the majority disregarded Article 51(6)(d), which governs the distribution of reserved seats. He emphasized that once a candidate has aligned with a political party, they could not withdraw without consequences, referencing Article 63-A, which entails the potential loss of their seat.

Conclusion

Concluding his dissent, Justice Mandokhail asserted that the judgment under review is indefensible and underscored the importance of adhering to proper legal protocols regarding candidates’ statuses in political affiliations.