Islamabad:
Contrary to the majority opinion of a complete bank of the Supreme Court, which on July 12, 2024 ordered the allocation of seats reserved for the PTI, a Constitutional Bank (CB) reviewing the order establishes that the PTI is guilty for not obtaining reserved seats after the general elections of February 2024.
While the audience review requests in the case of the reserved seats, the judges wonder why the PTI did not challenge the orders of the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP) to declare their independent candidates despite the fact that the eminent lawyers were disputing elections in the PTI ticket.
The judges also constantly defend the order of January 13, 2024 of the Supreme Court that declares the elections illegal within the PTI party. The order had turned out to strip the party of its electoral symbol.
Even the judge, who also raised serious questions about the behavior of the ECP in his minority opinion, criticizes the “bad legal strategy” of the PTI to obtain reserved seats and the decision of the candidates backed by PTI to join the Sunni Ittehad (sic) council, which he had not played in the general elections.
A three-members bank led by the former president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa, announced the verdict in the case of the intra-party PTI elections on the night of January 13, 2024, the last date for the presentation of party symbols in the general elections.
Since May 9, 2023, PTI’s leadership has been accusing the government of using coercive tactics to press its leaders to leave the party. Even during the elections, candidates backed by PTI were not allowed to execute any campaign. Even the nomination documents of some candidates were taken before their submission.
The bank led by Judge Qazi Faez Isa had forced ECP to announce the date for the general elections in consultation with the president. However, there was a serious clash between the old CJP and the PTI, since the second had presented a presidential reference for its removal during its rule.
After January 13, 2024, the PTI had lost hope that any relief from the Supreme Court led by CJP Isa could obtain and after the order of the intra -speech electoral case, the PTIF Khosa council had withdrawn the contempt of contempt filed against the ECP for not complying with the SC decision to provide a level of level game to the PTI to compete with the elections.
Some lawyers ask why CJP Isa did not list the request for review against their hearing order to clarify the ambiguity, if the ECP was misunderstanding the order by declare independent PTI candidates.
They point out that if the SC could issue two clarifications in the Mubarak Sani case, then why couldn’t he realize the misinterpretation of his important failure by the ECP, which is a constitutional body?
Constitutional banks (CBS) have also been created in the Supreme Court and the Superior Courts in view of the 26th Constitutional amendment, which, according to the PTI, was approved using coercive tactics.
The order of review of the CB hearing against the order of July 12, 2024 in the case of the seats also includes judges selected by the executive members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) after the approval of the 26th amendment.
There is no explanation of why the CB Committee did not give a recommendation to the JCP for the inclusion of the six judges that were part of the original bank who heard the case of the reserved seats.
Currently, no one at the bank is supporting the majority decision in the case of the reserved seats. Even two signatories of the majority sentence are not approving any comments in favor of the verdict on July 12.
Judge Ali Baqar Najfi has given a surprise when using the term “biased” for the majority decision. Only Judge Salahuddin Panwar is showing interest in reading the majority judgment.
Judge Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar said that, being Junior judges, they should defend the trial under review. However, he urged the SIC Faisal Siddiqi Council to highlight important points for determination at this stage.
Judge Aminuddin Khan, who leads the bank, is consisting of his approach. He has been constantly asking questions about the relief granted to Judges PTI by the majority judges on July 12, 2024.
Judge Morserat Hilali, who was a member of the bank that had granted the order of January 13, 2024 in the intraparte electoral case, expresses his concern that the majority sentence would discuss the ruling of the electoral case of PTI, which was not challenged before them.
Faisal Siddiqi said the majority judges criticized the behavior of the ECP, but did not question the order of January 13. Siddiqi is trying to read the important parties of the July 12 judgment before the bank.
There are very thin possibilities that the majority judgment is confirmed by this bank.
There is a criticism that the majority judges had made judicial overreach in this case. On the other hand, PTI’s lawyers say that the majority judges had tried to restore democracy, which is the outstanding characteristic of the Constitution. The audience of the case is postponed until June 16.
If the PTI could not obtain reserved seats, then the situation may not change, but if the ruling parties obtain reserved seats, then they will be easily in a position to obtain the majority of two thirds in the Parliament, which allows them to amend the Constitution.
PPP through FAROOQ H NAEK and ASAD ABBASI have presented written answers in the case of reserved seats. The PPP said the order under review contravenes the established principles of constitutional interpretation.
When designing a procedure not contemplated under the Constitution, the order becomes legislative territory, contrary to the consistent jurisprudence of this honorable court that “the function of the court is interpretation, not legislation.”
The answer establishes that it is an established principle of this Court that when the law prescribes a specific way and procedure to do something, it must be strictly followed without deviation. This principle only guarantees the withdrawal of the order in review, he added.
