ISLAMABAD (MNN); Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has observed that returning officers prepared the lists of 41 independent candidates correctly during the 2024 general elections, stating it was PTIās own leadership that compelled these individuals to file nominations as independents.
The observation appears in his additional note in the reserved seats review case. On June 27, the Constitutional Bench overturned the Supreme Courtās earlier July 12, 2024 ruling that had awarded reserved seats to PTI.
While seven judges accepted all review petitions filed by the ruling coalition, threeāincluding Justice Mandokhailāpartially accepted them, and two rejected the pleas on the first day of the hearing.
Justice Mandokhail upheld his earlier decision of granting 39 seats to PTI but reviewed the majority judgment concerning the remaining 41 seats. In the note published on the Supreme Court website, he explained why the full original bench could not be assembled after the 26th Amendment.
The judge wrote that PTIās decision-makers pushed the 41 candidates to file as independents, and the original bench failed to consider this aspect. He noted that the returning officers correctly listed the 41 candidates as independents in Form-33, and these individuals later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council under constitutional provisions.
These candidates had already declared themselves independent by December 24, 2023, weeks before the Supreme Court judgment that took away PTIās election symbol.
PTIās lawyer Salman Akram Raja had earlier stated that the party directed candidates to submit papers independently to avoid complications. Justice Mandokhail questioned how 39 other PTI-backed candidates filed papers with party affiliation if the circumstances were so unusual.
However, he maintained that the returning officers and the Election Commission misused their authority by declaring the 39 affiliated PTI candidates as independents and by refusing reserved seats to PTI based on their returned candidates.
The judge also addressed why the original bench could not be reconstituted. He said that after the 26th Amendment, the Constitutional Bench was specifically authorized to hear constitutional matters, resulting in a 13-member bench.
He argued that referring the matter to the Judicial Commission to re-nominate original bench judges would have ensured judicial continuity and the best possible solution. But the majority members disagreed.
Justice Mandokhail further stated that the presumption that the 41 candidates belonged to PTI was not supported by any evidence. He said that the majority judgment committed legal and constitutional errors by labeling them as independents and allowing them to join a party within 15 days, even though the matter was not before the court.
He stressed that no authority, including the Supreme Court, can change the declared status of a candidate. He added that Article 187 allows the Supreme Court to ensure complete justice only in matters pending before it, but this power cannot be expanded without legal basis.
The judge reiterated that errors in the original judgment regarding Articles 51 and 63A needed review, as they created serious constitutional inconsistencies. He concluded that human error is natural, but the Supreme Court has the authority under Article 188 to correct judgments when substantial injustice becomes evident.
