Justice Athar Minallah issued his dissenting note in the election delay case on Friday, saying that when political matters are referred to the court it inevitably leads to public confidence in the highest institution of justice being eroded.

“When politicians do not approach the appropriate forums and bring their disputes to the courts, the former may win or lose the case, but inevitably the court is the loser,” Justice Minallah wrote.

“All the institutions, including this Court, need to set aside their egos and strive towards fulfilling their Constitutional obligations.”

He also termed it ’alarming; that the struggle for power between political parties was creating a srisis situation that was pushing the country to the brink.

“It is ironic and unimaginable for the political stakeholders to involve the Court in resolving political disputes which ought to have been settled in the forums created for this purpose under the Constitution,” he said.

Are PTI’s actions constitutional?

Justice Minallah says that the country’s political environment is ‘toxic’ and even the expectation that politicians will sit down and sort out their problems is far fetched.

However, he points to two actions of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and calls their consitutional legitimacy questionable.

The first is resigning en-masse from the assembly rather than discharging their ‘constitutional obligation’. Justice Minallah wrote that PTI’s decision to leave the assembly instead of acting as the opposition “had profound consequences for the political process and constitutional democracy of Pakistan.”

The second is dissolution of the provincial assemblies as part of a political strategy.

“Is such conduct in consonance with the scheme of constitutional democracy? Is it not in itself a violation of the Constitution?” he asks.

He also described PTI’s decision to approach both high court and supreme court simultaneously as ‘forum shopping’.

Decision was 4:3

Justice Minallah also wrote that he agreed with other dissenting judges that the decision in the case was a 4:3 judgement that rejected the need for a suo-motu notice for the elections.

“I agree with their (Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s) opinion, particularly regarding the final outcome of the petitions and the suo motu assumption of jurisdiction by a majority of 4 to 3 because this was the understanding in the meeting held in the anteroom on 27.02.2023,” he wrote.

Justice Minallah also added that he ‘not recused nor had any reason to dissociate’ himself from the bench.