ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court has resumed hearing of appeal moved by Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) seeking directives for allocation of reserved seats.
A SC 13-member full court, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, is conducting the hearing. Faisal Siddiqui, the lawyer for the Sunni Ittehad Council, is presenting his arguments in the Supreme Court.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui referenced various decisions of the higher judiciary, including those by Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Jamal Mandokhail, and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
He explained to the court that these decisions emphasized the importance of aligning constitutional interpretations with natural boundaries.
Faisal Siddiqui argued that independent candidates can join any political party. He claimed that the Election Commission misinterpreted the concept of a political party and ignored the constitution concerning reserved seats.
Referencing Articles 51 and 106, Faisal Siddiqui mentioned that certain fundamental aspects of these constitutional clauses are:
Reserved seats should be based on the principle of proportional representation.
These seats should be allocated according to the list provided by each party.
The seats would be allocated to each party in proportion to their general seats after the inclusion of independent candidates.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted that independent candidates can join any party contesting in the elections, and the parties that contested were voted for by the public. He questioned how a party that did not participate in the elections could be granted reserved seats.
Justice Athar Minallah asked if PTI is still a political party, why did they join another party? He also noted that a political party ceases to exist after losing its electoral symbol but can remain an unlisted political party. If PTI still exists as a political party, why did they join another party?
Chief Justice remarked that if this argument is accepted, then by joining another party, it contradicts their own claims. Justice Shahid Waheed pointed out reading sub-clause 2 of Rule 92 of the Election Commission, while Justice Muneeb Akhtar noted that independent candidates were declared by the Election Commission. He emphasized that the Election Commission’s opinion is not binding on the court, and political parties are the foundation of parliamentary democracy. He called the Election Commission’s decision to declare PTI candidates as independent dangerous.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that all candidates were from PTI, questioning why certificates submitted by PTI were retracted. The Chief Justice noted a conflict of interest in Faisal Siddiqui’s arguments in favor of PTI and clarified that the court would only consider matters according to the constitution and law, not the Election Commission’s actions.
The Chief Justice also observed that the Sunni Ittehad Council did not lose its electoral symbol, and by not adhering to the constitution, the country has suffered. He reiterated his oath to uphold the constitution and stated that the court’s focus would be on constitutional matters, not political or government interests.
Faisal Siddiqui pointed out that affected parties have no choice in this country. The Chief Justice advised against political statements and emphasized that great judges have upheld the constitution by refusing to take oaths under PCO.
The Sunni Ittehad Council’s lawyer mentioned that the electoral symbol was taken away the night before the elections. The Chief Justice confirmed that the Sunni Ittehad Council’s electoral symbol is a horse and noted that it was not taken away.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail inquired why an appeal was not filed when the Election Commission declared candidates independent. Faisal Siddiqui responded that Salman Akram Raja would address this question.
The Chief Justice remarked that rules cannot override the constitution, and Faisal Siddiqui mentioned that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had noted that if 80% of candidates become independent, it’s unfair to allocate all reserved seats to 10% political parties. The Chief Justice affirmed that the constitution requires adherence and suggested amending it through parliament if needed.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa that the constitution is clear on reserved seats, and no judge can give a decision contrary to it. He also highlighted that PTI attempted to halt elections and did not conduct intra-party elections.
Justice Athar Minallah mentioned that questions were raised about the elections, similar to those in 2018, and noted the detention of those who did not hold press conferences. He questioned the difference between an independent candidate and a party candidate, emphasizing the importance of nomination certificates.
Justice Mian Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that if so, candidates should have stayed with PTI and demanded reserved seats. With these candidates now in another party, PTI’s case is not currently before the court.
Two days ago, the Election Commission submitted its written response, stating that despite the December 24 deadline, the Sunni Ittehad Council did not submit lists for reserved seats. Candidates requested the electoral symbol of PTI Nazariati but later withdrew their requests.
The Election Commission’s response indicated that after withdrawing from the PTI Nazariati symbol, candidates were declared independent and joined the Sunni Ittehad Council post-election. Consequently, the Commission decided 4-1 not to allocate reserved seats to the Council, a decision upheld by the Peshawar High Court.
Case Background
On May 6, the Supreme Court suspended the March 14 decision of the Peshawar High Court and the March 1 decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan to deprive the Sunni Ittehad Council of reserved seats for women and minorities.
On May 3, the case regarding PTI not receiving reserved seats was scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court.
On March 4, the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected the Sunni Ittehad Council’s requests for reserved seats.
On February 28, a five-member commission led by Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja heard the requests and reserved its decision.
The Election Commission of Pakistan rejected the Sunni Ittehad Council’s requests under Article 53(6) of the Constitution and Section 104 of the Election Act.
In a 22-page decision, the Election Commission stated that the Sunni Ittehad Council could not be allocated reserved seats due to legal violations and failure to provide the party list initially. These seats will be distributed among other parties according to proportional representation.
The Election Commission decided to allocate the reserved seats to PML-N, PPP, MQM Pakistan, and JUI-F, supported by four members of the Commission, while the Punjab member dissented.
Subsequently, PTI challenged the Election Commission’s decision not to allocate reserved seats in the Supreme Court, calling it unconstitutional.
