ISLAMABAD: The majority judges of the Supreme Court issued a detailed decision on the case of specific seats.
According to Geo News, the detailed judgment consists of 70 pages, which was written by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
The Supreme Court wrote in the verdict that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is a political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf has won or obtained the seats of national and provincial assemblies in the general elections of 2024.
In the detailed decision, it has been said that the decision of Peshawar High Court is null and void, not giving an election symbol does not affect the legal and constitutional right of the political party to contest the election, the constitution or law does not prevent the political party from fielding candidates in the polls.
The Election Commission is the guarantor of the democratic process in the country and the fourth pillar of the government. Still, thethe commission failed to fulfill its role in February 2024, detailed decision.
The court ruled that the Election Commission declared 39 out of 80 MNAs of Tehreek-e-Insaaf to be Tehreek-e-Insaaf, and asked the Election Commission to take the signed statements of the remaining 41 MNAs within 15 days. Notify.
In the decision, it was said that the decision of the Election Commission on March 1 has no legal status and the decision of the Election Commission on March 1 is against the constitution. He failed to fulfill his role.
In a detailed decision, the Supreme Court that the people’s vote is an important part of democratic governance.
How the two judges dissented is an impolite, detailed decision.
In the decision of the majority judges, it was said that it is with a heavy heart that two colleagues, Justice Aminuddin, and Justice Naeem Afghan, did not agree with our decision. Not in accordance, the action of Justice Aminuddin, and Justice Naeem Akhtarafghan is against the position of Supreme Court judges.
The decision said that as bench members, they can legally disagree with the facts and law, and fellow judges can also give different opinions and comment on the opinions of others, but how the judges disagreed is the restraint and courtesy of the judges of the Supreme Court. Is less than
The court wrote that how the two judges dissented was “indecent”, more disturbingly, the judges crossed the line while giving their opinions and two judges issued warnings to the 80 successful candidates.
The decision of the Supreme Court said that the courts should ensure that the people elected by the votes of the people assume their responsibility under transparency. Should be done
