ISLAMABAD: During a live-streamed hearing of the review petitions against the Supreme Court’s July 12, 2024, judgment on reserved seats for women and minorities, critical constitutional questions dominated proceedings in the apex court on Thursday.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar posed a pivotal question to the counsel during the hearing: “Even if for public aspirations and democracy, can judges rewrite the Constitution?”
This question set the tone for the session, as the 11-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN), and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP).
Representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), Advocate Faisal Siddiqi responded that the Constitution had not been rewritten in any manner. However, Justice Musarrat Hilali disagreed, asserting that constitutional boundaries were crossed in the original judgment. “The three-day deadline for joining a political party was extended to 15 days. That is akin to rewriting the Constitution,” Justice Hilali observed. She further questioned the recognition of parliamentary parties, pointing out that Hamid Raza, associated with SIC, had contested elections as an independent despite SIC’s existence since 2013. “He did not contest under his party, so how was a parliamentary party formed?” she asked. “Only those parties that contest elections can become parliamentary parties.”
Justice Hilali also challenged a broader principle in the judgment under review, stating: “The verdict had declared voting a fundamental right of citizens. But voting, as per constitutional jurisprudence, is not a fundamental right.”
Meanwhile, Faisal Siddiqi reiterated that the court’s earlier decision had already accepted independent candidates as PTI members. “All eleven judges of the 13-member bench had accepted independents as PTI members,” he submitted. At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail reminded the court that both he and Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had agreed with the majority of judges in recognising 39 PTI-backed candidates. “Even Justice Yahya Afridi, in his note, acknowledged PTI as a political party and said it deserved reserved seats,” he added.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar also noted that even minority opinions had aligned with the majority in recognising PTI’s status.
Faisal Siddiqi criticised the review petitioners for inconsistencies: “They are now relying on the minority opinions that supported PTI, while simultaneously arguing that PTI deserves no relief. How can that be a valid basis for review?” Justice Salahuddin Panhwar remarked pointedly: “The judgment being reviewed hasn’t even been read before this bench.”
Earlier, during questioning of PMLN counsel Haris Azmat, Justice Mandokhail asked whether the written submissions explained how party-affiliated candidates were declared independent. Azmat replied that he had tried to address the issue.
Faisal Siddiqi also raised procedural concerns, stating that some review petitions had failed to follow the Supreme Court’s rules and should therefore be dismissed. On the matter of election symbols, Siddiqi stated that SIC’s symbol is a horse, but Hamid Raza contested independently.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the court is not concerned with how a candidate contested, while Justice Hilali insisted the issue was relevant and remained unanswered. Advocate Faisal Siddiqi told the court that the majority of judges in the original judgment had held that the reserved seats rightfully belonged to PTI. However, Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that Siddiqi was “creating problems” for himself. “It makes no difference to us whether PTI gets the seats or another party does,” Siddiqi replied, prompting Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail to quip, “Then your film will flop.” Siddiqi responded with a smile: “It’ll flop only if you want it to. We will accept your verdict.”
At the outset, Siddiqi referred to portions of the detailed verdict and emphasized that true democracy requires equal rights for all political actors, arguing that PTI candidates were deliberately denied such rights. Justice Mandokhail, however, challenged this framing: “Isn’t it democracy when candidates make their own decisions? No one can be forced to join a party.”
Siddiqi pointed to the Election Commission of Pakistan’s role, which had declared PTI-backed candidates as independents, but Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that Siddiqi was repeating points already addressed in the original hearing. Siddiqi stressed the uniqueness of the case: “This is the first time a review is being heard on a decision of a 13-member bench, and that verdict hasn’t even been read before the court.” Justice Mandokhail retorted: “Who’s stopping you from reading it?”
Justice Musarrat Hilali strongly questioned the SIC’s standing in the matter: “The SIC didn’t even contest elections. Why didn’t you tell PTI this? As party chairman, you should’ve disclosed that you were running as an independent. How can a party that didn’t contest claim reserved seats through independents?” Siddiqi maintained that his arguments had national importance and said he wished to read from the minority decision, adding: “Though I disagree with Justice Aminuddin’s opinion, I still found it powerful.”
The court adjourned the hearing until June 16, with Faisal Siddiqi scheduled to continue his arguments on behalf of the SIC.
