One of the counsels representing the respondent side expressed surprise at the speed with which the constitutional bench is proceeding on this matter. He expressed scepticism that the bench may suspend the majority judgment, authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
The counsel further questioned the bench for providing only one day for preparation, suggesting that such haste is unusual and raises concerns.
It is crucial to note that if the Constitutional Bench suspends the order, reserved seats will again be allocated to the ruling political parties, particularly PMLN and PPP.
There is also strong speculation within the bar that the executive might be planning another constitutional amendment to consolidate its dominance over the superior judiciary, suppress dissenting voices within the institution, and facilitate the elevation of ‘like-minded judges.’
Though the ruling parties could introduce an amendment without addressing the issue of reserved seats, the recent acceptance of a review in the Article 63A case allows the vote of defecting lawmakers to be counted.
Two judges, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi, who had dismissed the review petitions, have been excluded from the larger bench by the committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan.
This committee includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar.
Interestingly, Justice Mazahar was a signatory to the majority decision and also to two clarifications issued by the majority judges, led by Justice Shah, during the tenure of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa.
Despite this, he agreed with the majority of judges who have now issued notices to respondents in the reserved seats case. He did not provide any remarks regarding the merit of the case during Tuesday’s hearing.
Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii and witness to the court proceedings in courtroom No. 1, remarked that it was extraordinary for the hearing to take place without the involvement of the authored judge, Justice Shah.
Jaferii highlighted that it was remarkable that the judge leading the hearing had been censured by the majority in the original decision, now under review. He also pointed out that notices were issued in a review where the regulator is openly in violation of the judgment it seeks to have reviewed.
Lawyers believe this case will be a litmus test for the bench’s ability to uphold the authority of the apex court. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has deliberately defied the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Legal experts argue that judges must demonstrate their commitment to respecting each other’s decisions, as failure to do so will grant the executive a free pass to disobey judicial rulings.
Since the passage of the 26th Amendment, the executive has gained significant dominance over the judiciary, a move that could not have been possible without internal support for the present regime. Now, judges sympathetic to the current government are at the helm, while those not aligned with the government have been sidelined.
Judges of the Islamabad High Court, who have raised their voices against executive interference in judicial functions, are facing punitive measures in various forms.
Senior judges are not stepping in to rescue them. However, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi has made it clear that transferred judges will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the Islamabad High Court.
This case holds particular significance for the independence of the judiciary. It is widely understood that Justice Shah is being targeted for rendering the decision in the reserved seats case.
All eyes are now on today’s hearing of the reserved seats case, with expectations that some judges may again question the non-implementation of the decision by the ECP.