SC judges argue as full court take up SIC reserved seats case

F.P. Report

ISLAMABAD: A 13-member full-court bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa, is hearing the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) reserved seats’ case.

Justice Musarrat Halali is not part of the SC bench due to illness.

The SIC had challenged in the apex court the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) and the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) verdicts in the case.

SIC’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui will continue to give his arguments in the case.

The case’s hearing will continue for the next two days, while no other case will be heard today.

In its reply submitted to the SC, the ECP has stated that the SIC is no longer entitled to the reserved seats.

It reiterated that the SIC’s eligibility was compromised on several grounds.

On May 6, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, had suspended the ECP and the PHC’s verdicts on the SIC’s plea, seeking reserved seats.

Justice Mansoor said that the case had been fixed for hearing and “we are suspending the ECP and PHC verdicts.”

A full-court, headed by CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa, will take up the plea.

As the hearing began on Monday, Justice Jamal Mandokhel of the Supreme Court (SC) asked how a political party that did not contest the general elections could be allotted reserved seats.

During the hearing of Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) appeal against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) verdicts in the reserved seats case, the party’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui gave references of article 51 and article 106 of the constitution.

Siddiqui argued that an independent candidate after getting elected could join any political party. He opined that the ECP’s definition of a political party was wrong. “The election commission made a wrong interpretation of the constitution while giving the decision in the case,” the SIC lawyer said.

The chief justice asked Siddiqui to make a correct interpretation of the constitution if he thought that the interpretation done by the ECP was ‘flawed’. “Leave the election commission. Please go ahead with your arguments,” the CJP asked the SIC’s lawyer. “Tell me how SIC could be allotted seats in the light of the constitution,” he asked.

Justice Mandokhel said that the legislators getting elected as independent candidates could join any party that had contested the general elections. “The reason why MNAs of a party are in the assembly is because their party has contested the elections,” the judge said, adding, “How come a party that did not contest the elections could be given reserved seats.”

In its reply submitted to the SC a day ago, the ECP has stated that the SIC is no longer entitled to the reserved seats.

It reiterated that the SIC’s eligibility was compromised on several grounds.

Siddiqui emphasized that the court should interpret the constitution progressively, “Justice Mandokhel has given a similar interpretation in his recent judgment,” he added.

Justice Aminuddin Khan sought clarification on the procedure for a member to join political parties.

CJP Isa also questioned whether we should disregard the natural meaning of the Constitution, and if so, why.

Faisal Siddiqui remarked, “The core issue revolves around the purpose of constitutional provisions.”

Justice Mandokhel questioned why special seats should be allocated to those who did not participate in the elections.

Justice Saadat argued that adhering strictly to constitutional wording risks rendering its intent ineffective adding SIC has been declared as not being a political party.

Justice Minallah commented that once a political party loses its election symbol, it ceases to be a political party.

He further pointed out that PTI was an unlisted political party and that ECP had categorized it as an unlisted political entity.

The chief justice again questioned why PTI members would join another party if PTI is still considered a political party. “If this argument is accepted as true, then why did you commit suicide by joining another party,” CJP Isa remarked.

The CJP remarked “Why PTI candidates committed suicide after being elected independent. The problem would not have arisen today had they stayed in PTI.”

He added that the stance contradicts the party’s own arguments.

Counsel Siddiqui informed the court that revision over PTI intra-party elections was pending.

Siddiqui said that reserved seats would be given to a party under the principle of proportional representation. “Every party gets these seats after the inclusion of independents in it,” he said.

Speaking on the occasion, Justice Irfan Saadat said that when the SIC did not contest the elections, then obviously it could not have representation in the assemblies. “And when presently it has no representation, then on which grounds the party could be allotted these seats.”

Justice Athar Minallah said that the ECP had acknowledged that the PTI was a political party. “And even if an electoral symbol is taken away from a party, it does not imply that it has ceased to exist,” the judge said, and added, “When PTI continues to exist as a political party, then why did the candidates backed by it dissociated themselves from it after getting elected?

“It is beyond comprehension,” Justice Minallah said. He went on to say that a registered party was not bound to contest polls on one election symbol.

The CJP said he would not listen to the complaint that the ECP had done an injustice to the PTI. “We will follow the law and the constitution.”

Then addressing Siddiqui, he said that he was SIC’s, and not PTI’s lawyer. “Your arguments in the favour of the PTI show a conflict of interests,” the chief justice remarked.

He further said that it was the PTI, and not the SIC, from which the election symbol had been snatched. “The reason why the mess the country is in is because of breach of the constitution time and again. Let me tell you that I have taken an oath that I will protect the constitution,” he said, adding, “What the SC is to follow is the constitution, and not to protect the interests of any party or the government.”

The truth of the matter was, the CJP said, that the PTI was not interested in holding intra-party elections. “Don’t point fingers at others,” he said.

SIC’s lawyer Siddiqui said there was no choice for the affected parties in the country.

“Don’t drag politics into the hearing,” the chief justice asked the lawyer. “Let me remind you that there have been such great judges in the country’s history who refused to take oath under the PCO.”

Siddiqui lamented that the PTI was deprived of its electoral symbol just a night before the elections.

Speaking on the occasion, Justice Muneeb Akhtar said it was the PTI’s stance that a majority of those reaching assemblies as independents belonged to the party. “If they belong to the PTI even after winning their seats, then why there was a need for rejoining the same party,” he wondered.

The judge went on to say that the prelude to the constitution was very explicit. “Independents are free to join the party of their choice at any time,” he said.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the people had voted for the PTI. “But these independent candidates, backed by the PTI, after returning to the assemblies joined the SIC,” he said, adding, “What will become of those who had voted for the PTI?”

“The fact is that the people did not vote for the SIC,” the judge added.

Justice Isa said that the election commission kept urging the PTI to hold intra-party elections, but it did not.

Justice Minallah said that questions were raised over the fairness of the general elections held on February 8, 2024. “What happened in 2024 was a repeat of the 2018 elections,” he said, adding, “Who can forget that those who did not hold pressers were picked up? These things are an open secret.”

“Should the Supreme Court shut its eyes to what happened prior to this year’s elections? Should we remain silent on the violations of basic human rights and the constitution?” Justice Minallah questioned.

SIC’s lawyer said he concurred with his remarks.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Siddiqui whether the SIC, he was representing in the court, was a political party. “And if the answer is in negative, then what will become of the reserved seats it claims it is entitled to?” he asked.

How, the judge went on to say, the principle of proportional representation would apply to the SIC. “Will the reserved seats belonging to the PTI remain vacant?” he questioned. Siddiqui replied that certainly not.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, said in his opinion PTI-backed independent candidates, who won their seats, could get reserved seats. “But we will have to look at the procedure of how the SIC could get these seats,” he added.

SIC’s lawyer argued that a party could not be given more reserved seats than it had won. “What I am trying to say is that reserved seats could not be left vacant,” Siddiqui said.

Justice Mansoor said that a party would get reserved seats in proportion to the seats it had won in the elections. “But when you are not a political party, then how could you be entitled to these seats?” the judge questioned.

Justice Mansoor went on to say that another question was what would be the situation if the party, which was not a political party, does not get these seats.

Siddiqui said that if SIC did not get these seats, they will continue to remain vacant.

The CJP asked SIC’s lawyer whether the manifestos of the PTI and the party he was representing were the same.

Siddiqui replied that that was not the case and the two parties had different manifestos.

SIC’s lawyer further said that the question whether the SIC was a political party or not did not arise from the word go. “As a matter of fact, the ECP had acknowledged that the SIC was a political party,” Siddiqui said.

Justice Minallah said that even today the election commission considered SIC a political party. “The parliament cannot be left incomplete,” he said, adding, “In my opinion, it is the ECP’s responsibility to complete the parliament.”

“In my opinion, the ECP, instead of becoming the protector of the rights of voters, started opposing them,” he said, adding, “It was the election commission which had to decide whether the PTI would get reserved seats or the SIC.”

The chief justice said that somebody had given a wrong advice to the PTI candidates. “Go and take that individual to court,” he advised.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked Siddiqui that as per the ECP, it was laid down in the SIC’s constitution that non-Muslims and women could not become members of the party. “Is it true?”

SIC’s counsel said it was true to the extent of non-Muslims.

The CJP asked Siddiqui to better look at the national flag. “Don’t you see that there is a representation of minorities even in the country’s flag?” he questioned.

“Please also go through the statement of Father of the Nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah,” Justice Isa said, and asked SIC’s lawyer, did not he think that the constitution of the party he was representing was a violation of the country’s constitution.

Courtesy: 24News