CJP: PTI repeatedly sought time, but failed to hold party’s polls

F.P. Report

ISLAMABAD: As the Supreme Court resumed the hearing on the petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council – an ally of the PTI – challenging the denial of reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf could not hold intra-party elections despite taking a year’s time.

A 13-member full court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, conducted today’s proceedings. Other judges on the bench were Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa noted that the issue of PTI intra-party elections had been ongoing for many years, with the party repeatedly requesting time for these elections. He likened it to extra time in football, stating that despite extensions, the core game remains 90 minutes. Justice Muneeb Akhtar interjected, questioning whether the elections conducted were legitimate.

The chief justice observed that it was evident that the PTI had failed to hold intra-party elections despite a year passing. Justice Ayesha Malik asked about the allocation of reserved seats to the BAP party in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during the last elections. The lawyer responded that this allocation was not in accordance with the law and there had been no hearing on the matter. Justice Ayesha further questioned how the Election Commission could take different positions on the same issue.

The lawyer explained that the current Election Commission had made the decision after hearing all parties. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that each election was separate, questioning if it was accurate to say five elections were held on Feb 8, with federal and provincial elections treated distinctly. Later, Justice Jamal Mandokhail called PTI leader Barrister Gohar Ali Khan to the rostrum. Justice Mandokhail queried whether, during the initial hearing, Gohar Ali Khan had affirmed that PTI’s declaration and certificate were submitted correctly.

The judge noted discrepancies with the Election Commission’s records, asking for clarification on which forms were submitted. Gohar responded that every candidate could submit two forms, adding that he submitted one form as an independent candidate and the other as a PTI candidate. He mentioned that the ECP had only produced one form. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah commented that elections must adhere to a unified approach, questioning the submission of two forms.

After the break, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan began his arguments, stressing that reserved seats were reserved to ensure women’s participation in politics. He emphasised that only political parties with proportional representation could be allotted reserved seats. He highlighted that women had gained significant representation in the national and provincial assemblies, as well as the Senate, starting in 2002. He noted that from 1990 to 1997, reserved seats for women had been eliminated.

The AGP clarified that the principle of proportional representation aimed to prevent vacant seats, asserting that independent candidates could not be counted for reserved seats. Justice Ayesha Malik asked for the basis of this assertion. Justice Shahid Waheed commented that the formula provided contradicted Section 94 of the Election Rules.

Justice Ayesha Malik inquired whether the same formula had been applied since 2002 for reserved seats. Justice Waheed explained that the Election Act of 2017 did not exist in 2002. The AGP clarified that the formula for reserved seats had remained unchanged under the new law. During the hearing, Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the Election Commission had excluded the main party from the election by misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s decision.

The PTI had, after losing its electoral symbol ‘bat’, directed the independent candidates who won election with its backing to join the SIC. In March, the ECP ruled that the SIC was not entitled to claim quota for reserved seats “due to having non-curable legal defects and violation of a mandatory provision of submission of party list for reserved seats”. Later, the ECP accepted applications of the opposing parties and decided that the seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain vacant and would be allocated by a proportional representation process on the basis of seats won by political parties.

The development resulted in the PTI-backed SIC losing a total of 77 reserved seats – 23 National Assembly seats (20 women and 3 minorities), 25 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly seats (21 women and 4 minorities), two Sindh Assembly seats (women) and 27 Punjab Assembly seats (24 women and 3 minority). The PTI dismissed the ECP verdict as unconstitutional.

The SIC then challenged the ECP ruling in the Peshawar High Court, but its plea was dismissed. In May, a three-judge bench of the apex court took up a petition filed by the SIC. The court suspended the ECP decision to allocate SIC’s reserved seats to other parties. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, during the proceedings, remarked that the mandate given by the people should be properly represented in parliament.

The court sent the matter of reserved seats to the Judges Committee to decide whether the case would be heard by the same bench or a larger bench would be constituted. The court also ordered the ECP to suspended victory notifications of 77 lawmakers [on reserved seats], causing the ruling coalition to lose its two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. In late May, a full court was constituted to hear the case.