Judge recuses from Pakistan’s top court in key reserved seats case

A judge of Pakistan’s Supreme Court recused himself on Friday from a high-profile constitutional bench hearing review petitions against a ruling that granted reserved parliamentary seats to the opposition.

Justice Salahuddin Panhwar stepped down after senior counsel Hamid Khan, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), objected to judges appointed after the 26th Constitutional Amendment being part of the bench. Panhwar was among those judges.

This is the third judge to recuse from the special bench in the politically sensitive case.

Earlier, Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Abbasi had also separated themselves from the 13-member constitutional bench hearing appeals filed by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

What’s the issue?

The case stems from a July 2024 order in which eight of the 13 judges ruled that 39 members of the National Assembly, originally opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members but elected as independents, remained legitimate lawmakers despite joining the SIC after the party lost its electoral symbol.

That ruling, which had not yet been implemented by the National Assembly, positioned the PTI-aligned bloc as the largest in the lower house and entitled to additional reserved seats for women and minorities.

The hearing

When the 11-member bench resumed hearing the review petitions on Friday, Justice Panhwar addressed the courtroom before arguments began.

“Hamid Khan objected to the inclusion of judges appointed after the 26th Amendment. I am among them,” Panhwar said. “Public trust in the judiciary is essential. It is important that no party has any objection to the bench.”

He added that he was personally hurt by Khan’s remarks but said the decision to recuse was not personal. “I cannot sit on the bench anymore for these reasons,” he concluded.

Khan acknowledged the decision, saying he appreciated Panhwar’s gesture. But the head of the bench, Justice Aminuddin Khan, took issue with that statement.

“This is not something to appreciate,” Justice Aminuddin responded. “This is the result of your conduct. We gave you respect by hearing your objections, but don’t misuse that opportunity.”

Heated exchange

The courtroom grew increasingly tense as SIC counsel continued to challenge the composition of the now 10-member bench. Justice Mandokhail confronted Khan for repeatedly raising procedural objections.

“What law are you citing for this objection?” Mandokhail asked. “Whatever respect you have today is because of the Supreme Court.”

Khan responded, “Don’t proceed with the case while you’re angry.”

Mandokhail shot back: “You be careful with your words. I skipped my mother’s funeral to be here, and you are joking.”

The heated exchange escalated further as Mandokhail reminded Khan that Faisal Siddiqui had been appointed SIC’s lead counsel, not him. He threatened to cut Khan’s argument short if he continued to digress.

Khan maintained that a 12-member bench could not review a 13-member decision and again raised questions about the 26th Amendment’s legality.

“You’re referencing the amendment that you previously opposed,” Mandokhail quipped. “You either accept the amendment or stop practicing law.”

Justice Aminuddin then adjourned the hearing until the afternoon, hinting that a verdict may be announced later in the day.