ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) Tuesday questioned the maintainability of review petitions filed against the apex court judgment declaring that the PTI was entitled to the reserved seats of women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.
An 11-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court — headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan — heard live broadcast of the review petitions of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against July 12, 2024 judgment in the reserved seats case.
Commencing his arguments, SIC counsel Faisal Siddiqui termed the review petitions non-maintainable, saying identifying flaws in the main decision was essential for a review petition.
Justice Mandokhail asked the counsel whether he supported or opposed the review and pointed out that 13 judges had said that the SIC was not entitled to the seats. Siddiqui told Justice Mandokhail that he partially supported his decision adding, “Sometimes, you win even when you lose.”
Siddiqui contended that since most of the judges on the current bench had not heard the main case, as six new judges had joined, he would present his arguments in detail, including the background of how the issue arose. The SIC counsel emphasized that 11 out of 13 judges had declared that the seats belonged to the PTI.
Justice Mazhar noted that the review petition was filed only against the majority decision. Siddiqi pointed out that interestingly, the review relied on Justice Mandokhail’s opinion. He listed seven main arguments, starting with the objection that if the PTI was not a party, how relief was granted.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether denial of election symbol was the decision of the Election Commission or Supreme Court, to which Siddiqui replied that it was the Election Commission’s decision. Siddiqui read aloud paragraphs from the majority decision. Justice Amin-ud-Din noted that no one objected to the facts.
Siddiqui explained that the Election Commission had rejected the PTI’s intra-party elections and therefore took away their election symbol, which started the dispute. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan observed that those facts were not before the court.
He submitted that the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s decision, which refused to recognize PTI as a political party and accept its candidates as PTI’s. As a result, Siddiqui added that the PTI candidates received different election symbols.
Justice Mussarat Hilali asked the SIC counsel if the decision had been challenged to which he replied that it was challenged by Salman Akram Raja, which was mentioned in the main decision.
Justice Mussarat noted that the Supreme Court only ruled on the election symbol and not the party’s existence. Faisal Siddiqui pointed out that 10 judges said the Election Commission had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether the PTI had challenged misinterpretation. Siddiqi responded that Salman Akram Raja had challenged the returning officer’s decision, who had not accepted him as a PTI candidate.
Justice Amin-ud-Din observed that the PTI itself accepted that it was no longer a political party.
At this, Faisal Siddiqui mentioned that the SIC had filed the petition to obtain reserved seats, while PMLN, PPP, MQM, and JUI-F also filed petitions, requesting that the SIC should be denied the seats even though they had already received seats according to the proportional representation.
There are 78 disputed reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies and if these are allocated to other parties, the government will gain a two-thirds majority, making it a controversial supermajority.
Questioning the maintainability of the review petitions, Siddiqui referred to Article 63A and other review-related rulings, asserting that review could only happen where there was a mistake or flaw in the decision. He contended that the current review petitions were not maintainable.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, however, reiterated that under the rules, anyone feeling affected by a decision could seek review adding that Article 188 of the Constitution simply stated that the Supreme Court could review its own decisions.
Later, the court adjourned further proceedings until May 29, when Siddiqi will continue his arguments.
