Islamabad:
The highest court on Earth went to unknown waters on Monday when he began listening to review requests against his judgment on July 12, a verdict that had delivered Pakistan Tehreek -E -Isaf (PTI) reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures, but without six of the original judges, including the author of the sentence.
The hearing opened new paths in more than one, marking several first in judicial history.
The review requests, presented by the ruler PML-N and PPP together with the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP), are being heard by a larger bank of 13 members.
Interestingly, the majority of the New Bank of the Supreme Court was not part of the original decision, and no explanation has been offered why the Constitutional Committee of the Court did not recommend including the six judges of the previous ruling.
For the first time since the 26th constitutional amendment was approved, the procedures of the Supreme Court were broadcast live, an acclaimed movement as a step towards transparency, although the absence of key judges showed a long shadow.
Despite the high bets, not a single judge offered observations in favor of the majority trial under review. Even Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi, both signatories for the original ruling, remained unusually tight, adopting a marked restriction tone.
In contrast, two judges who had not been part of the original bank raised a fundamental question: if the PTI was not a part in the initial case, how could it receive relief?
They wondered how the seats reserved for PTI were given when they were not part, neither before the ECP nor the Superior Court of Peshawar (PHC).
Judge Aminuddin Khan observed that it was an admitted fact that all the returned candidates backed by PTI had joined the Sunita Ittehad council, who had not played the general elections.
He pressed even more, asking if any returned candidate backed by PTI had approached any forum to declare himself as a PTI candidate.
‘Should the SC close your eyes?’
However, the elephant in the courtroom remained the role of the ECP during the controversial surveys of February 2024, and most judges avoid discussion about it. Although the majority sentence had made the ECP contact, only Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail pointed out the failures of the electoral body.
Judge Commandkhail, part of the minority that believed that PTI was entitled to reserved seats, said that the president officers and the officers who return did not fulfill their duties in accordance with the law and the Constitution during the general elections of February 2024.
He challenged the opposite lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, asking: “Should the Supreme Court close his eyes?”
When commenting on the matter, the lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii marked what he saw as an obvious period in due judicial diligence.
“What seemed most surprising was how some of the judges who were not part of the original procedures had not read the trial under review. He is sitting to determine an error floating the registry.”
“He is doing it extraordinarily without the author’s judge and many other judges, who were part of the original procedures. You can surely read the trial for yourself and not trust the lawyers’ arguments to update the most basic principles of the case for you,” he added.
The observers also noticed that the government’s side appeared in a hurry for tie loose ends. The tips for the PML-N, PPP and ECP were in line behind the arguments presented by Makhdoom Ali Khan, despite the criticisms of the original verdict on the behavior of the ECP.
Experts suggest that Judge’s next Hajj Khan could be behind this urgency. It is speculated that the ruling coalition is interested in seeing the established matter before its departure.
On the other side of the corridor, PTI and its Sunita Ittehad Allied (sic) council they have hired four senior tips to defend the majority ruling. Sic Faisal Sicdiqi is scheduled to present its arguments today (Tuesday).
Legal circles believe that the current impasse comes from the incorrect reading of the ECP of the verdict of January 13 of the Supreme Court, which declared surveys illegal within the PTI party.
In addition, the court under the former president of the Supreme Court Qazi Faez Isa was also criticized for dragging the feet in PTI’s request for review, a delay that many say that he left the cloudy political field in uncertainty.
Even the judgment of the majority had marked constitutional tensions in the heart of the matter.
The majority verdict had sought how the issue of intra party elections, a matter of internal governance of a party, could succeed the fundamental rights of citizens to vote and political parties to effectively participate in the competition elections by obtaining a common symbol for their candidates, guaranteed under articles 17 (2) and 19 of the Constitution.
