ISLAMABAD (PEN) : The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench has dismissed a petition that sought to declare candidates who secure more than 50 percent of votes in elections as automatic winners.
The seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, reviewed the petition. During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised a key question: under which constitutional provision could candidates be required to win with over 50% of the votes? He emphasized that election outcomes are determined by the votes cast, not by arbitrary thresholds.
Justice Ayesha Malik further probed, asking what fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated and which specific constitutional clauses were being infringed.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail pointed out that if a new law was needed to address the issue, it was not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to create one. He stressed that such matters should be left to Parliament, where laws are made.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that decisions affecting their life should be made by Parliament, but Justice Aminuddin responded firmly, saying that Parliament doesn’t decide an individual’s life.
Justice Musarat Hilali added that voting is a fundamental right, and if voters choose not to cast their ballots, it is a reflection of their own decision, or “weakness,” as she put it.
Justice Mandokhail also asked the petitioner whether they had participated in the February 2024 elections. When the petitioner admitted they had not voted, Justice Mandokhail remarked that this failure amounted to a violation of the Constitution, as every eligible citizen has the right and duty to vote.
In a final ruling, the bench imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner for pursuing frivolous litigation. In response, the petitioner suggested that the fine should be at least 100 billion rupees, humorously proposing it could help reduce the country’s national debt. Justice Aminuddin Khan, however, remarked with a touch of irony that the petitioner likely didn’t have the means to pay such a large amount.
The court’s decision highlighted the importance of respecting the democratic process and the role of Parliament in shaping the laws that govern the country.
