ISLAMABAD:
A constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the request of one of the PTI counsels to defer hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case on a daily basis.
Earlier, Salman Akram Raja, resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024 majority order of a full SC bench. He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution.
“After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007 several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled.”
“The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated.”
During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018, and 2024. He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion.
“However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats,” he said.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how can the Supreme Court stop any politician from contesting elections independently.
“Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehmanbeing major party leadersdecide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?” he asked.
Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party’s registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but that the SIC was not present in parliament, she said.
Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the Sindh High Court Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the ‘Awam Dost’ party. “Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]” The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term “Kaptaan ka Sipahi”.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI. Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible.” “Either they were more sensibleor they had a higher tolerance for pressure,” commended Justice Hilali.
Recalling the past political events, SIC’s counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols.
“It was a Saturdaya holidaybut the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be. At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand?
He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP despite the fact that the ANP had not even held any elections “We had conducted elections but the ECP did not accept them. We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently,” he said.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time while the PTI had already been given several years. “Your party constitution was made more foolproofwe can even say it’s better than others,” he noted
Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan’s request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9: 30am today.
On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI’s intra-party polls null and void.
As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024 general elections as independents.
Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court.
