ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) will resume today (Thursday) hearing into review petitions filed against its judgment of July 12, 2024 declaring that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was entitled to get reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and provincial assemblies.
An 11-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, headed the review petitions case of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against July 12, 2024 judgment on reserved seats for women and minorities in National and provincial assemblies.
Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi.
Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), will continue his arguments on the point of maintainability of the instant review petitions.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the PMLN filed additional grounds in its review petition through an application in detailed as well as main judgment given on July 12, 2024 in the reserved seats case.
Filed through its counsel Barrister Haris Azmat, the PMLN contended that the powers under Article 187 of the Constitution were used in contradiction to establish judicial principles in the July 12 decision regarding reserved seats.
“These powers under Article 187 are meant to be used only in pending cases to ensure complete justice,” the PMLN submitted adding that the Sunni Ittehad Council had filed an appeal with 80 members to claim reserved seats. However, as a result of the court’s decision, the Sunni Ittehad Council is now left with zero members.
The PMLN further submitted that the powers under Article 187 are not unlimited adding that the issues on which the court gave its decision were never part of the official court record.
“Moreover, none of the 80 members of the Sunni Ittehad Council appeared before the court,” the application contended adding that the Sunni Ittehad Council and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) cannot be considered the same political party.
The PMLN submitted that it is an admitted position that the list of eighty (80) candidates shown in the list provided by the ECP (“ECP List”) all contested as independent candidates. None of the said candidates came to this court or the forums disputing this fact.
Furthermore, all eighty (80) candidates being independent have joined SIC and have given an affidavit to this effect. Neither they were impleaded before this court by the appellants nor were heard, the PMLN submitted.
It prayed that in view of the same, the unilateral observations against the record in the detailed reasoning from Paragraph No 106 onwards are liable to be recalled.
It further contended that taking up the case of forty-one (41) candidates from the ECP List, it is submitted that they have not shown linkage with PTI in any of the columns in the ECP List.
“It is shocking and surprising that the said candidates have been given fifteen (15) days to join any party,” the PMLN submitted adding that on the contrary, the Constitution provides three (3) days to do so, and that too from the date of their notification as a Returned Candidate.
It contended that in view of the same, there are two glaring errors apparent on the face of the record from the said findings alone: (i) the independent candidates cannot be given any choice that two months after the election and especially after they have joined a political party to join another party; (ii) when the Constitution provides only three days in terms of Article 51(6)(d) then the courts have no power to rewrite the Constitution.
The PMLN submitted that when the detailed reasoning itself has acknowledged in part (Paragraph No66, 79, 80) that SIC is not entitled to the reserved seats, then it could not have gone ahead and granted those seats to PTI, which was not before the court nor claimed the same before any forums below.
It prayed the court that the findings recorded are erroneous and are liable to be recalled. It further prayed to the court to allow this application to bring these additional grounds on the record in the interest of justice.
