F.P. Report
ISLAMABAD: Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), on Tuesday, said that a majority of the judges on the bench hearing the review petitions against granting reserved seats to the PTI were those who were not part of the bench, which had first heard the case.
During the hearing of the case, he said that’s why he would speak in detail. “11 out of 13 judges had said in their judgement that the seats belonged to the PTI. “The verdict had not been given by eight judges, but by 11 judges,” he added.
An 11-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the petitions.
Siddiqui said that first of all, he would answer the question of why the PTI was granted the relief when it was not party to the case.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday had said that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) was not entitled to the reserved seats.
During the hearing of the review petitions filed against granting reserved seats to the PTI, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked how the SIC could claim that it was entitled to reserved seats. “How can it be granted reserved seats?”
The judge went on to say that independents could join a political party, which had representation in the parliament. “But how on earth could independents join a party which did not even exist in the parliament?” Justice Musarrat questioned.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, a lawyer, told the bench that as per the SIC’s account, independents had joined it.
Justice Musarrat asked whether the SIC had contested the general elections of February 8, 2024.
The lawyer replied, “No, the SIC had not contested the elections.”
Justice Shahid Bilal asked whether the PTI was a party to the reserved seats case. “Can a party, which is not a party, be allotted reserved seats?”
Makhdoom replied that certainly the party, which was not a party to the case, could not get reserved seats.
