ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday included the Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (KP) Assembly Speaker and provincial government as parties to the review petitions against the apex court judgement delivered on 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 resumed hearing in the review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against the apex court judgement delivered on July 12, 2024 in reserved seats case.
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 Kakarh, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi.
The bench accepted the pleas of KP Assembly Speaker as well as the KP government seeking for impleadment as necessary parties in the review petitions and issued notices to the parties.
Both the Speaker and KP government through the provincial chief secretary had filed civil miscellaneous applications (CMAs) seeking for becoming necessary party in the review petitions, contending that despite the fact that the applicants were necessary parties to the proceedings, they were not impleaded as parties in the review petition.
That the applicants have valuable rights and interests in the matter, the pleas submitted. During the hearing on Monday, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan told the court that the KP government was not a party in the main case before the Peshawar High Court but later on became party in the Supreme Court.
Syed Kauser Ali Shah, KP Additional Advocate General, however, informed the court that they were party in the PHC as well as in the Supreme Court, therefore they should also be impleaded as necessary party in the review petitions too as well.
Later, the court accepted the KP government and Speaker’s pleas, impleaded them as necessary parties in the review petitions and issued notices to the respondents — ECP, PMLN, PPPP. Earlier, during the hearing, Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) continued his arguments in rebuttal.
Justice Aminuddin observed that the PTI was granted relief instead of the SIC. He asked Faisal Siddiqi, whether he agreed with the decision. The counsel responded in affirmative while Justice Mandokhail asked the counsel as to whether the reserved seats could have been left vacant and asked the lawyer to assist the court on that point.
Siddiqui submitted that the he would like to first review the majority decision, adding that the interests of the PTI and SIC were aligned, hence he had no objection to the reserved seats being allotted to the PTI.
At this, Justice Mazhar raised the point that the PTI and SIC had different constitutions and party structures, so how could their interests be the same. Justice Mandokhail, however, opined that their interest in the reserved seats was indeed common.
Siddiqi argued that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had stated in the decision that the circumstances forced the members to join the SIC.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether any candidate had mentioned these circumstances themselves, or made any such excuse. Siddiqui replied that the majority decision did not consider this point critical—whether a party approached the court or not. He said that the issue arose due to the large number of independent candidates, even though reserved seats are allocated proportionally.
He further stated that PTI’s independent candidates demanded complete justice. One key point, according to him, was whether the reserved seats of independents could be distributed among three parties, and whether the PTI contested the elections as a party. He emphasised that this question needed the court’s attention.
Justice Aminuddin noted that this specific question wasn’t even before the court. Siddiqui responded that the majority decision had settled the matter. Justice Mandokhail noted that the judgement was issued on January 13, while nomination papers had been submitted in December, yet some candidates still declared themselves as independents.
Justice Mazhar remarked that even with an election symbol, the PTI existed as a party. Siddiqui countered that the ECP had withdrawn PTI’s symbol on December 22, 2023. Justice Aminuddin noted that the dispute centred on independent candidates joining the SIC. Siddiqui replied he was not advocating for either the PTI or the SIC, but merely supporting the majority judicial decision.
Justice Panhwar remarked that the decision on reserved seats corrected the previous injustice by the Supreme Court. Justice Mandokhail questioned how the Supreme Court could decide a candidate’s independent status when even the Returning Officer lacked such authority.
Siddiqui said the answer lied in a previous decision by Justices Aminuddin and Mandokhail, where eleven judges had declared it illegal to term PTI members as independents.
Justice Mandokhail clarified that this only applied to members who had submitted nomination papers and party tickets under the PTI—only 14 had submitted party certificates. The court assumed the others had submitted papers which later went missing, hence the figure of 39 members.
The counsel pointed out a disagreement between justices Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi regarding the count. Justice Aminuddin stated that a candidate can submit multiple nomination papers.
Siddiqui said the ECP order of February 2 did not recognise independent members as PTI members. Justice Mandokhail clarified that the order applied to only one candidate, but Siddiqui said returning officers had applied it to others as well.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether the inclusion in the list had been challenged when the symbol was denied. Siddiqui said the affected individuals deserved some benefit. Justice Mandokhail reiterated the court assumed that 39 candidates had joined no party.
The SIC counsel noted that the timeline was changed by the court itself. When asked which timeline, he said it related to nomination papers. Justice Mandokhail said he would correct any errors in his decision if found. Siddiqui replied, “No sir, please—we will defend your judgement, whatever you say.”
Justice Mandokhail stated that 41 members were not declared as candidates of any party in the majority decision, meaning the ECP was correct for 41 and wrong for 39. All judges had ruled that the SIC was not entitled to reserved seats.
The sole question was whether it was eligible for reserved seats. A party not contesting elections or winning any seats cannot claim reserved ones—though members can still join a party post-election, he added.
Siddiqui said there was a difference of opinion on the 15-day period and the number of PTI members. The majority extended the three-day window to 15 days. Justice Mandokhail noted that extensions apply only when the time hasn’t already been used.
Siddiqui in a lighter note said Article 254 seemed tailor-made for their case.
Justice Rizvi remarked that this would then be a miracle. Justice Panhwar said Article 254 actually worked against them.
Justice Mazhar added that case decisions depend on their specific circumstances. Siddiqui countered that Article 254 should protect someone wrongly declared a member of a party. Justice Mandokhail reiterated that the court had assumed 39 members joined no party.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Tuesday), and the SIC counsel would continue his arguments.
