ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Wednesday told the Supreme Court that there was a deviation from the Constitution in February 8 elections, hence the 10 judges delivered the verdict on the basis of facts in the reserved seats case on July 12, 2024.
An 11-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court — headed by Justice Haji Aminuddin Khan — resumed hearing in the review petitions filed by the ECP, PMLN and PPPP against the apex court judgment in the case.
Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the PTI, commenced the arguments. He particularly focused on the scope of review petitions stating that the constitutional bench was dealing with the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on July 12, 2024. The counsel stressed that in broader perspective, the bench had to look into the appreciation of facts on the basis of which the 10 judges of 13-member bench delivered the judgment. “It is now up to the bench to examine whether the decision given by the majority eight judges and other two judges, including Justice Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez Isa, was up to the mark or not.
“But what about the undisputed facts?” Justice Aminuddin Khan asked Raja. The counsel responded that eight and two judges had acted on the basis of undisputed facts adding that eight judges looked at the undisputed facts in larger context while the two judges in lesser as well. “Both the eight judges and two judges after accepting those facts passed an order,” Raja submitted. “Whether this court will now go and look at those facts with findings that these facts do not establish at which the eight judges arrived or those facts do not exist then two matters will have to be looked into by this court,” he said.
Firstly, unless those facts are found to be entirely illusionary or non-existent, you cannot reject on the appreciation of the facts, Raja contended. Secondly, Raja submitted that the eight judges and two judges had looked into the law, the Election Act and Rule 94 explanation as well as Section 104 and other sections. He submitted that two judges — Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez Isa — expressed their satisfaction to the extent of 39 candidates.
Raja contended that the eight judges and two judges had expressed their satisfaction to the extent of those 39 members and gave the verdicts on those facts, which this constitutional bench while hearing the review could not alter or impeach. He further submitted that two members sitting on this bench — Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi — had also expressed satisfaction over the facts in majority judgment on the basis of which the eight majority judges gave the verdict.
He further argued that when the PTI’s electoral symbol was withdrawn, a political crisis ensued. After the court decision, there was a deviation from the Constitution, and the Election Commission declared the PTI candidates as independent. He alleged that the Election Commission misled the Supreme Court by claiming that the PTI candidates had not submitted the party certificates, although he himself submitted one that was not accepted. Raja added that he would prove through records that the PTI candidates’ nomination papers were not accepted under the party’s ticket.
Raja submitted that whenever there was deviation from the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a strict action on that. Raja noted that PTI was not recognized as a main party in the Supreme Court. Two petitions were filed, but the Registrar’s Office rejected both.
Justice Mandokhail clarified that it was not the judges but the Registrar’s Office that dismissed the petition, and appeals could have been filed against the Registrar’s decisions. Raja responded that they were told at the time that no appeals regarding elections would be heard.
Justice Mandokhail noted that absence of a symbol hampered the voters’ ability to identify candidates. Raja submitted whenever they put up posters, the authorities tore them down by morning. He contended that their 41 candidates had submitted affidavits declaring their PTI affiliation, and PTI officially accepted them; however, the returning officers (ROs) told them that if they mentioned PTI, their nomination papers would be rejected. “This created panic, and people flocked to his office seeking advice on what to write on their papers,” Raja submitted
Justice Mandokhail said even if they had written PTI at that time, they would still have been considered independents.
Raja told the court that during the February 8 elections, they were not allowed to campaign adding that wherever they scheduled rallies, homes and offices were demolished.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan observed that PTI was not a party to the case and that clarification is necessary. He noted that although a request was made to make PTI a party, even the Sunni Ittehad Council did not back it.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Thursday). Salman Akram Raja will continue his arguments.
