A Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court resumed on Monday a set of replicas of review against the ruling of the Apex court that had declared the eligible of Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf for reserved seats, broadcasting live procedures for the first time, from the approval of the 26th Constitutional amendment.
In the short order dated July 12, 2024, eight of the 13 judges concluded that 39 of the 80 MNA were returned PTI candidates in the National Assembly.
The judge of the Supreme Court, Jamal Khan Commandkhail, said that the president and officers who return did not fulfill their duties in accordance with the law and the Constitution during the general elections of February 2024.
If the Supreme Court closed his eyes, he asked Makhoom Ali Khan, who has challenged the order of July 12 on behalf of certain women.
A bank of 11 members of the Apex court led by Judge Aminuddin Khan is listening to review requests against the July 12 order in which it was argued that PTI has the right to obtain reserved seats. However, the SC order has not yet been implemented.
Judges Ayesha to Malik and Aqely Ahmed Abbasi had dismissed the review requests on the first day of hearings.
The other 10 members of the bank are Judges Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer and Ali Najal.
Interestingly, six judges, including the author of the majority decision, are not part of this largest bank.
Judge Shahid Bilal and Judge Mussarrat Hilali wondered how they were given seats reserved for PTI when they were not part, nor before the Pakistan Electoral Commission or the Superior Court of Peshwar.
Judge Aminuddin Khan said that it is an admitted fact that all the returned candidates backed by PTI had joined the Sunita Ittehaad Council, which did not challenge the general elections.
The main lawyer Makhoom Ali Khan appeared on behalf of the PML-N candidates and PPP affected by the July 2024 ruling.
Judge Commandkhail said that all the judges were unanimous that the reserved seats could not be assigned to SIC, since it did not challenge the general elections.
“How can independent legislators join a political party that is not in Parliament? SIC played the elections?” Judge Malik asked.
In response, the PPP lawyer clarified that the party had not participated in the elections, and even its president, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, had been an independent candidate.
Judge Commandkhail then commented: “The sic is not qualified for reserved seats. While the Sunita Ittehad Council could have formed a parliamentary part, it does not have the right to reserved seats.”
Makhoom also said that the ECP assigned certain seats once reserved for certain individuals, then it could not be called the same in question through the jurisdiction of Quo Warranto.
Makhoom said electoral disputes could be challenged under article 225 of the Constitution.
He also questioned the majority decision to exercise jurisdiction under article 187 to assign seats to PTI. He said SC has limited jurisdiction under article 185 of the Constitution.
Makhoom has completed his arguments. Surprisingly, the tips for PMLN and ECP have adopted their arguments.
The case hearing is postponed until tomorrow, when lawyer Sic Faisal Siddiqi will begin his arguments
In his detailed verdict on the reserved case of the seats, written by Judge Mansoor Ali Shah, the Supreme Court criticized the ECP for its “illegal acts and omissions”, which caused the damage of PTI and its supporters. The court also accused ECP of not acting as an impartial administrator of the elections.
On September 14, 2024, the day when the Government did not introduce the 26th amendment in Parliament, the Supreme Court issued a clarification, criticizing ECP for not enforcing its July 12 ruling in the case of the reserved seats.
Subsequently, on October 18, Judge Shah clarified once again that the amendment to the 2017 Elections Law, held in August, could not revoke the verdict in the case of the reserved seats.
The law “elections (second amendment), 2024” was seen as an attempt to avoid SC’s decision by preventing independent legislators from joining a political party after a certain period.
A bank of six judges will listen to the request to challenge these amendments in December 2024, while a separate PTI statement against the January 13, 2024 decision on its electoral symbol is also pending.
