Justice Salahuddin Panhwar Recuses Himself from Reserved Seats Case: Supreme Court’s 11-Member Bench Collapses

In a dramatic turn of events at Pakistan Supreme Court on June 27, 2025, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself from hearing the highly sensitive case regarding the allocation of reserved seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies. His withdrawal led to the collapse of the 11-member constitutional bench that had been constituted specifically for the case, further intensifying the legal and political debate surrounding the matter.

Background: The Reserved Seats Controversy

The reserved seats case pertains to the constitutional interpretation and legality of distributing women and minority seats to political parties following general elections. The issue came to the forefront after Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) candidates, contesting as independents due to party symbol complications in 2024, formed alliances post-election and sought the allocation of reserved seats under their new banners.

In July 2024, a full 13-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the reserved seats could be allotted to PTI-aligned independent members grouped under a common identity. This landmark judgment was seen as a partial restoration of PTI’s political strength and was a significant moment in the post-election legal saga. However, several review petitions were filed challenging that decision, and the Supreme Court constituted an 11-member bench to hear the matter afresh in June 2025.

Justice Salahuddin’s Recusal: The Trigger

On the morning of June 27, the bench convened under Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. However, before the proceedings could formally begin, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar announced his recusal from the case. His decision followed an objection raised by senior lawyer Hamid Khan, representing one of the petitioners, who implied that Justice Panhwar’s inclusion might raise questions about impartiality.

In his statement, Justice Panhwar clarified that while he did not accept the objection as valid, he was stepping down to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and avoid any perception of bias. He stressed that his recusal should not be taken as an admission of partiality or wrongdoing, but rather as a gesture to preserve the public’s confidence in the judicial process.

“I don’t accept the objection, but the perception of partiality in the public eye can be damaging,” he stated. “To protect the institution, I choose to recuse myself voluntarily.”

Collapse of the Bench and Legal Implications

Justice Panhwar’s withdrawal effectively dissolved the 11-member bench, as the court could no longer proceed with the same configuration. This led to an immediate adjournment of proceedings, and the case was postponed, pending the reconstitution of a new bench. This development has triggered speculation about further delays and legal maneuvering in what is already a complex and politically charged case.

The collapse of such a high-profile bench reflects not only internal sensitivities within the Supreme Court but also the immense pressure surrounding cases that directly influence Pakistan’s political landscape. Legal observers have noted that this is not the first time a large constitutional bench has disintegrated due to recusals or internal disagreement. Previous instances include benches hearing cases related to military courts, judicial appointments, and constitutional amendments.

Judicial Integrity or Strategic Retreat?

The question now being asked in legal and political circles is whether Justice Panhwar’s move was an act of integrity or a response to mounting external pressures. While the judge himself maintained that his recusal was a principled decision, critics argue that such withdrawals—especially under pressure from lawyers—may set a troubling precedent.

“If every time a lawyer objects, a judge steps down, we risk undermining the very stability of our justice system,” remarked a constitutional expert speaking on condition of anonymity. “At the same time, judges must protect the sanctity of the bench by avoiding any appearance of bias. It’s a delicate balance.”

Supporters of Justice Panhwar argue that he took the higher moral ground and ensured that the case remains free from unnecessary controversies, especially given the public scrutiny and media attention surrounding the proceedings.

Political Stake and Public Interest

At stake in this case is more than just a legal technicality. The final decision on reserved seats could determine the composition of legislatures and potentially the balance of power in Pakistan’s fragile political setup. With PTI-backed independents forming alliances and claiming parliamentary representation under a new identity, the question of how reserved seats are assigned is central to the democratic process.

A delay in resolving the matter not only hampers legislative functioning but also erodes public trust in judicial neutrality and efficiency. The nation watches closely as the Supreme Court prepares to reconstitute the bench and resume hearings.

Conclusion

Justice Salahuddin Panhwar’s recusal and the subsequent breakdown of the Supreme Court’s 11-member bench highlight the sensitive intersection of law, politics, and public perception in Pakistan. As the judiciary attempts to navigate this challenging terrain, the country awaits a resolution that upholds the Constitution, protects judicial integrity, and ensures fairness in electoral representation.

Whether this event marks a temporary disruption or signals deeper divisions within the judiciary remains to be seen—but it has certainly added another layer of complexity to an already high-stakes legal battle.

Reference:  مخصوص نشستوں سے متعلق کیس، جسٹس صلاح الدین کی سماعت سے معذرت ، 11 رکنی بینچ ٹوٹ گیا