Humayun Khan
PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court issued 30-page detailed judgment in the writ plea filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) regarding allotment of reserved seats which was rejected, on Monday.
PHC five-members larger bench gave a brief verdict on March 14 while the judgment authored by Justice SM Atiq Shah. The court maintained that it had the authority to hear cases of reserved seats up to the provincial level, adding that the Election Commission’s decision to allocated reserved seats to other political parties was in accordance with Article 51 of the constitution.
It said that SIC was not entitled to reserved seat for women as the party submitted a list after the prescribed time. The judgement stated that “SIC” have asked for issuance of an appropriate writ for declaring that order dated 01.03.2024 of the worthy Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”), rendered in the cases relating to the seats reserved for women and non-Muslims in the National and Provincial assemblies.
The verdict declined the allocation of reserved seats to the petitioners and instead were allocated to other political parties. Pakistan Tehreek-e-lnsaf (PTI) canidates after the ECP declared PTI’s intra-party election as illegal, contested the general election for National and Provincial Assemblies held on 8th February 2024 as independent candidates and as such they all were notified as independent returned candidates while issuing the Notification dated 16.02.2024 by the ECP. Assemblies, being nullity in the eye of law, is of no legal whatsoever.
In terms of Article 51 read with Article 106 of the Constitution, an independent returned candidate has to join any political party within three days of the issuance of notification. PHC larger bench ordered that SIC is not entitled for any share in the reserved seats for women, therefore, the request for filing list of candidates for reserved seats at a belated stage does not arise.
Petitioner has essentially assailed the interpretation of the section as done by the ECP. Besides, the section is not a substantive provision rather it merely provides a mechanism for effective conduct of election. Other than what has been stated above, the learned counsel did not lay much stress on the vires of the section 104 of the Act of 2017.
