Reserved seats case: SC CB accepts KP govt’s plea, issues notices to PML-N, PPP & ECP

ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in reserved seats case, while accepting the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provincial government’s application, issued notices to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Monday, heard the review petitions of PML-N, PPP and the ECP.

The proceeding was live-streamed on the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel.

Advocate General KP submitted that the KP government and the KP speaker are the necessary and the proper parties; therefore, they should be impleaded in review petitions against the Supreme Court majority judgment of eight judges. “The applicants have valuable rights and interests in the matter in issue i.e. allocation of reserved seats, which is directly affected by the consolidated judgment dated 12-07-2024,” he stated.

During the proceeding, Faisal Siddiqui, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued that Article 254 of the constitution seems to apply to his case, as when any act or thing is required by the Constitution to be done within a particular period and it is not done within that period, the doing of the act or thing shall not be invalid or otherwise, ineffective by reason only that it was not done within that period.

Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned how when the PTI-backed independents had already joined the SIC within three days of their victory notification by the ECP. He said Article 254 is not to rectify mistake or error, but it is for coverage of an act or thing that is required to be done in a particular period and is not done within that particular period.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that if the independents have not joined the SIC then you (the SIC) are nobody before the Court. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar said if a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that particular manner. He said when Article 51 says that the independent candidates have to join any political parties within three days of their victory notification then why the majority judgment gave them 15 days to join PTI.

Justice Mandokhail noted that the majority judgment has not declared 41 candidates, out of 80, as members of a political party then it means those 41 candidates are still independents, and the ECP had made a mistake only upto 39 candidates. He said those candidates who in their nomination paper had mentioned that they are independent then the Court has no right to tell them to join such and such party.

Faisal Siddiqui argued that Justice Yahya’s judgment said that all the 80 independent candidates’ cases be remanded to the Commission. He then contended that the majority judgment stated that the independents could not join the SIC.

Justice Mandokhail corrected him by saying that the independents could not join the SIC only for the purpose of reserved seats, adding how come anyone be barred from joining a political party, then it would be a violation of Article 17(2) of the constitution.

Justice Amin noted that all the 13 judges in their judgments declared that if a political party is not in the Parliament then it is not entitled for the reserved seats. Justice Mandokhail said for reserved seat a political party is required to contest elections and win at least one seat. He then asked from Faisal how many independent candidates had mentioned PTI in their nomination papers?

Justice Mandokhail noted that only 14 candidates, out of 80, described in nomination forms that they are affiliated with PTI and filed the PTI’s certificate with their papers before the Commission. “But we thought the ECP might have misplaced documents of some candidates therefore wrote in judgment that 39 candidates are members of PTI.

Justice Mazhar said that the majority judgment despite the fact that the PTI was not necessary and proper party before the Court granted it relief by invoking Article 254, adding Rule 94 of the Election Rules was struck down by exercising the suo moto jurisdiction.

He further said as the seats were given to PTI by the majority judgment, therefore now the SIC is espousing their (PTI) right. Faisal said; “I am neither supporting the SIC, nor the PTI, but only support the majority judgment.” He mentioned that the 90 per cent judgment of Justice Mandokhail and ex-CJP Qazi Faez is similar to the majority judgment.

The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025