ISLAMABAD: Heading an 11-member bench, Justice Aminuddin Khan Thursday remarked that the Supreme Court was bound by the Constitution and could reverse any unconstitutional decision.
This observation from the apex court judge came during the hearing of review petitions filed by the ECP, PMLN and PPPP against the apex court’s July 12, 2024 judgment in the reserved seats case.
The court adjourned the hearing for today (Friday) rejecting the PTI counsel’s request to adjourn the proceedings until Monday.
Earlier, Salman Akram Raja told the court that he would highlight the points mentioned in the 2-judge and 8-judge rulings. Justice Mandokhail questioned which fundamental rights were affected in the case. While Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan asked if the court could fill a political vacuum and if a party made mistakes in its application, could the court correct them? Raja responded that the current situation was not created by the PTI, but obstacles were placed before them. “If a wall was torn down, the question should be who built the wall, not why it was torn down,” Raja told the bench.
Justice Amin responded that the court was giving full opportunity for hearing, but that didn’t mean the lawyer could say anything. “You built the wall by coming to the court under the banner of Sunni Ittehad Council,” Justice Aminuddin Khan told Raja. “Prepare for the next election,” Justice Naeem told Raja. Raja replied that if the current situation continued, the future elections will also be like this. At this, Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the Supreme Court was bound by the Constitution, and if any decision was unconstitutional, the court could reverse it. “In my view, the majority decision in the reserved seats case on July 12, 2024 was not unconstitutional,” Raja replied. At the outset of hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhail observed that in every era, some party benefits from the system, but it is the job of political parties — not of judges — to bring reforms, emphasizing that he still stood by his decision. Justice Amin asked Raja if his position was that the Election Commission acted unfairly. Salman Akram Raja replied that injustice was not just done against him but also against the public. Raja explained that he wanted to clarify why PTI’s name was not listed with 41 candidates, stating that the Punjab Election Commissioner had decided not to accept the PTI’s nomination papers. This prompted Justice Mandokhail to point out that the decisions on the nomination papers were made by Returning Officers (ROs), not the Election Commission. Raja argued that ROs were influenced to reject the papers, creating uncertainty.
Justice Mandokhail observed that serious political parties knew how to handle such situations. He also noted that during the main case, they kept asking as to where the PTI was to which Raja submitted that they came late but with the right stance. Justice Mandokhail, however, disagreed saying they not only came late but also did not follow the proper legal route, and only came to claim seats through the Sunni Ittehad Council. “The court had ensured full justice before the election, but the facts being presented in these review petitions were not presented at that time,” Justice Mandokhail remarked. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and two other benches had ruled in favor of PTI in 99.9% of nomination cases. Raja, however, contended that the real stakeholder in this case were the people of Pakistan. Justice Amin remarked that the court should at least know under what jurisdiction it was operating. “This case was not just between the court and the parties but involved violation of democratic rights of the public. However, these points were not presented earlier,” he said. Justice Mussarat reiterated her complaint that she had asked about the vote not being treated as a fundamental right, but instead of a court response, an answer was posted on the social media from a fake ID.
