• Fawad Chaudhry wonders how a judge can dictate or impose policy on a political party
• Shireen Mazari says polls ‘seem to be arousing fear in so many’
KARACHI: A “scathing note”, a “necessary unravelling”, a “mediocre judgement” — Justice Athar Minallah’s detailed note issued on Friday on the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings on the provincial polls’ delay attracted all kinds of reactions from people on both sides of the fence and the ones sitting on it.
“A mediocre judgement by all standards, technicality supersedes substantial issues,” PTI Senior Vice President Fawad Chaudhry said in a tweet.
He said that on the one hand, Justice Minallah’s note advocated the supremacy of parliament, but on the other, wanted to examine the dissolution (of the Punjab Assembly) in contravention of the Constitution. Besides, by referring to Lahore High Court, the note “acceded to the principle of elections”, Mr Chaudhry added.
In another tweet, while referring to Justice Minallah’s comments on a ruling by former National Assembly deputy speaker Qasim Suri and the PTI lawmakers’ decision to resign en masse, Mr Chaudhry said: “Political decision making is prerogative of a political party, how a judge can dictate or impose a policy on a political party? How amazing are the observations.”
He said Justice Minallah had also recognised the principle of elections within 90 days in his dissenting note and had referred to the LHC decision in this context.
Dr Shireen Mazari, another senior vice president of the PTI, said Justice Minallah “has written more of a political statement than a judicial note, which is most unfortunate and disappointing too”.
“Elections seem to be arousing a strange fear in so many it’s amusing,” she tweeted.
When journalist Mubashir Zaidi said that he believed the Supreme Court had to constitute a full court to re-hear the elections petitions, Ms Mazari retorted: “So, every time the powerful disagree with a judgement it must be rejected?”
She added, “We know who are petrified of elections and who back them. We also know those who hate PTI and therefore want no elections.”
In his reaction, lawyer Muhammad Ahmad Pansota believed that Justice Minallah “went a little overboard”.
To a question, he said a detailed or additional note could be issued by any judge in addition to the author judge. “It’s usually issued by a judge to dilate upon his finding in his own desired way.”
On the other hand, Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed gave salient points of Justice Minallah’s decision in a Twitter thread and described the decision as a “scathing note”. Mr Ahmed appreciated the dissenting note, posting three “clapping hands” emojis.
Lawyer Reema Omer said that what was happening in the Supreme Court today was related to a separate constitutional crisis involving independence and impartiality of the judiciary, though she did not directly refer to Justice Minallah’s note.
After briefly describing how “some judges become party to the establishment’s persecution of their peer” and how the CJP allegedly misused his powers, she said: “Those aggrieved by these extraordinary manipulations and abuse of power are now speaking up, asserting their independence, and publicly recording their dissent with how the SC is being managed.”
“It is an unravelling — perhaps a necessary one — that has been long in the making,” Ms Omer said.
Published in Dawn, April 8th, 2023
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.