ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) Tuesday requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the review petitions filed against its July 12, 2024 judgement in reserved seats case.
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.
Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for the SIC, concluded his arguments in rebuttal requesting the apex court to dismiss the ECP review petition.
Advancing his arguments, he submitted that the case carries constitutional and public importance, arguing that the Peshawar High Court did not have the option to provide complete justice to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), while the Supreme Court had full authority to grant relief and it provided the PTI complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution.
Justice Mazhar questioned whether relief could be granted without being a party to the case. “Has the Supreme Court ever granted relief to a third party.” The SIC counsel replied affirmatively and cited a precedent from the court’s own decisions.
Justice Mandokhail questioned why the powers of the high court were being downplayed, stating that the court has the authority to include any necessary party.
Faisal Siddiqui contended that the 11 judges granted relief to the PTI, adding that the issue before the court was the will of the people.
Justice Aminuddin, however, noted that the issue is not that simple, adding that the 80 individuals (referring to PTI members) have never denied the absence of SIC.
Siddiqui questioned as to if tomorrow someone takes over the Supreme Court, will it become theirs after 40 years. “Then it seems you are the ones who have taken over these 80 people,” Justice Aminuddin told the counsel, adding that the counsel claimed the ECP and the high court are wrong, asking the counsel as to clarify his own side.
Siddiqui admitted his mistake. Justice Aminuddin said if he has accepted his mistake, he must also face consequences. “Whether the court should do something that doesn’t exist,” Justice Aminuddin asked the counsel to which Siddiqui responded that they are demanding the same thing Fatima Jinnah once demanded.
Justice Aminuddin observed that that no one has refused joining the SIC, but in reality, the party seems to have taken over the PTI. He questioned whether the court should ignore all events and simply grant relief.
Justice Mandokhail, citing the example of Balochistan, said that in disputes between two parties, the land would often turn out to belong to the government, and the courts would rule in favor of the government. He questioned how the court can revoke the independent status of those who have clearly declared themselves independent.
Justice Rizvi summoned ECP officials to the rostrum and asked how many members had submitted affidavits and documents to the commission. He inquired whether 39 members had been notified, to which officials responded that the notifications were issued on court orders.
The SIC counsel argued that the ECP had not issued notifications for the reserved seats. Justice Mandokhail asked whether those seats remained unallocated. The commission’s officials responded that notifications were not issued for the disputed seats.
Siddiqui maintained that the ECP did not implement the Supreme Court’s order. Justice Rizvi asked whether the instructions issued to the PTI in the majority judgement were followed.
Siddiqui submitted that all members had submitted their credentials and party affiliations. “The real question should be why the commission failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.”
Justice Mazhar noted that although the ECP notified 39 members as PTI members, it did not allocate reserved seats accordingly. He asked whether reserved seats were distributed proportionally among these 39 members. The ECP director general (law) said that they couldn’t allocate seats based on that formula as there was a formal method for that.
Justice Mandokhail inquired about the formula while Justice Rizvi asked the ECP official as to why other parties were allocated reserved seats if such a rule exists. Justice Rizvi added that the decision should have been finalised first before allocating any reserved seats. The DG responded that all other political parties were already allocated their reserved seats.
At this, the SIC counsel claimed this was injustice to the PTI and emphasized the sanctity of Supreme Court decisions. He submitted that the issue is not just the case, but the integrity and future of the Supreme Court itself. Therefore, the ECP’s review petitions should be immediately rejected.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that all these are our institutions. “Today I sit here; tomorrow, someone else will.” He asked the counsel as to whether unconstitutional laws or acts must be obeyed. Siddiqui replied that unless declared void, they should be followed. At this, Justice Mandokhail responded saying that then that is exactly what the ECP had done. Meanwhile, the court adjourned further hearing until today (Wednesday).
