• Writes to CJP, blames IT department for failing to upload verdict
• Criticizes ECP for acting like a partisan player in PTI reserved seats case
ISLAMABAD: The internal tensions within the Supreme Court intensified on Friday after Justice Ayesha A. Malik formally lodged a complaint with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi over the failure to publish her dissenting opinion in the reserved seats case.
Justice Malik, along with Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, had recently dismissed review petitions filed by the PML-N, PPP, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), promising that detailed written reasons would follow. While the orders were issued on Thursday, they remained missing from the Supreme Court’s website by Friday morning.
In a one-page letter to the CJP, Justice Malik expressed frustration that her dissenting order, finalized at 3:11 p.m. on Thursday, was still not uploaded despite repeated instructions to the court’s IT department.
She wrote, “I have been informed that the department is unable to comply. This lack of compliance is unacceptable.” Justice Malik formally requested that her order be published on the Supreme Court’s website without further delay.
She enclosed copies of her order and Justice Abbasi’s and forwarded them to all Supreme Court judges to highlight the IT department’s failure to complete what should have been a routine administrative task.
Details of Justice Malik’s Dissent
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Malik rejected the review petitions, asserting that the ECP and other petitioners were attempting to reargue a case that had already been settled.
She expressed alarm that the ECP had failed to implement the Supreme Court’s July 12 judgment on the reserved seats case, stressing that the commission is constitutionally bound to enforce the court’s rulings. “Compliance is not optional; it is a matter of constitutional duty,” she emphasized.
Justice Malik warned that disregarding such decisions weakens both the Supreme Court’s authority and the foundational principles of democracy. She cited the Adil Khan Bazai case, noting how the ECP appeared biased in favor of the government and a particular political party, undermining its constitutional role as an impartial election body.
She criticized the ECP’s behavior in the reserved seats case, saying it acted more like a contesting party against the Sunni Ittehad Council and the PTI rather than an independent institution.
Questions Over Bench Formation
Justice Malik also raised concerns about the formation of the current 11-member constitutional bench, pointing out that five of the original 13 judges — including herself — were not reappointed to hear the review petitions.
She questioned how the new Article 191A, added through the 26th Constitutional Amendment, was being applied. The amendment requires the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to nominate judges for constitutional benches, but Malik warned that recent changes have increased political parties’ influence over the JCP, posing risks to judicial independence.
She argued that to maintain the legitimacy of the bench and public confidence, all available original majority judges, including the author of the decision, should have been included in hearing the review petitions.
“The committee should have requested the JCP to nominate judges for the review process,” her dissenting order stressed, adding that the legitimacy of a bench depends not only on procedural formalities but also on how it is constituted.
