Justice Mandokhail flags ‘excess of authority’ in reserved seats ruling | The Express Tribune
Rejects majority ruling on 41 reserved seats, maintains decision must be reviewed Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. PHOTO: FILE Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court’s now-defunct Constitutional Bench has reaffirmed his decision regarding 39 reserved seats but maintained that the majority ruling, which denied Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-backed Sunni Ittehad Council candidates 41 other seats, cannot…
Rejects majority ruling on 41 reserved seats, maintains decision must be reviewed
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. PHOTO: FILE
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court’s now-defunct Constitutional Bench has reaffirmed his decision regarding 39 reserved seats but maintained that the majority ruling, which denied Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-backed Sunni Ittehad Council candidates 41 other seats, cannot stand.
In his 12-page additional note, Justice Mandokhail said the ruling must be reviewed, terming the majority’s intervention an “excess of authority.” He stated that the court did not have the authority to declare the 41 candidates as independent, saying the decision does not align with the Constitution or facts.
Read: PTI loses reserved seats as SC overturns July 12 ruling
The seats in question are those reserved for minorities and women in the national and provincial assemblies. The case regarding the seats has seen several twists and turns after PTI’s internal disputes disrupted party nominations in late 2023. PTI candidates ran as independents in the February 2024 general elections, 80 of whom later joined the SIC.
The Election Commission of Pakistan initially denied PTI-backed independent candidates the seats, arguing that only those candidates may take reserved seats under a party if they hold its symbol. The core legal issue was that PTI candidates running as independents or as part of the SIC could not claim PTI’s reserved seats.
On July 12, 2024, a 13-judge Supreme Court bench ruled in favour of the PTI-backed SIC candidates, awarding them the disputed reserved seats. However, the ruling faced criticism, and review petitions were filed in May 2025 by the ruling PML-N and PPP. The Constitutional Bench heard these petitions in June 2025, during which Justice Mandokhail partially dissented from the majority.
Read More: PTI loses court battle for reserved seats
In June this year, the Supreme Court set aside the July 12, 2024 judgment, declaring it null and void, which led to PTI losing its reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies to the government coalition. He added that the provision of Article 191A of the Constitution shall take precedence over the SCRs of 1980; therefore, Rule 8 of Order XXVI cannot be applied in the present case.
In his note, Justice Mandokhail clarified that the court cannot change a candidate’s political affiliation and reaffirmed that the 41 contested seats are not currently under active judicial consideration. He also said the judgment under review, insofar as it concerns the 41 candidates, exceeds the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Article 187 of the Constitution.
Calling the judgment—which declared the 41 candidates to be independents—an error of the Constitution, law, and fact, Justice Mandokhail stated that the judgment under review cannot stand. He referenced the case amid ongoing political turmoil for PTI. Party founder Imran Khan remains incarcerated, while his sisters were taken into police custody after a 10-hour sit-in outside Adiala Jail late Tuesday night.
