In dissenting note written by senior judge of Supreme Court, Justice Athar Minullah, against decision of Supreme Court, three issues have come to fore. Well-known lawyer Salman Akram Raja and former President Supreme Court Bar Hamid Khan have disagreed with Justice Athar Minullah’s dissenting note.
Senior journalist and anchor person of private news channel ARY, Maria Memon, was speaking, and legal expert Salman Akram Raja had a lively discussion on Athar Minullah’s controversial note.
Salman Akram Raja said that in my opinion, the effect of the order of the 9-member bench of the Supreme Court on February 27. On February 27, 9 judges passed an order and asked the Chief Justice to reconstitute the bench. Because the Chief Justice has the power to change the bench.
Salman Akram Raja said that there is no mention of the February 27 order in Justice Athar Minullah’s dissenting note.
Salman Akram Raja said that since this case was under hearing in the Lahore High Court, after the decision of the Supreme Court, the Lahore High Court also said that since the decision was reached by three to two, the matters will proceed accordingly. And this appeal was dismissed. Similarly, the Peshawar High Court has also said that since the decision of the Supreme Court has come, there is no reason to hear the matter now.
Salman Akram Raja said that Athar Minullah Sahib should tell us that the operative order of the bench which gave the decision by four to three is saying that this petition is going back to the Chief Justice. And it is being said that the Chief Justice should reconstitute the bench. And then the Chief Justice constituted a 5 member bench which gave the decision. So how can you say that the petition was rejected, you sent the petition back to the Chief Justice to reconstitute the bench. You have also not denied in your dissenting note that you did not sign. Because your signature is on this order.
On the other hand, Hamid Khan, a legal expert and former President of the Supreme Court Bar, expressed his opinion in the program of Kamran Khan, a well-known anchor of Dunya News.
Hamid Khan said that Athar Minullah wrote in his dissenting note that the assemblies were dissolved for political purposes, it is clear that the assemblies are dissolved for political purposes only, the dissolution of the assembly and the existence of the assembly. Coming is also a political process. It is not your domain to see that the assembly was dissolved under politics. According to the constitution, the chief minister can dissolve the assembly whenever he wants. He is not bound to give reason.
The third point which both the jurists have drawn attention to is that if Athar Minullah Sahib was a part of this bench then why did he not speak at that time. When the Chief Justice was hearing this case. Athar Minullah Sahib was part of the bench and sat silently.