Reserved seats of women, non-Muslims: SC urged to initiate contempt of court proceedings against CEC, ECP members

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has been asked to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and members Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for not implementing the eight-member judgment on reserved seats of women and non-Muslims to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

Kanwal Shauzab, on Monday, through advocate Salman Akram Raja filed a contempt of court petition under Article 204 of the Constitution and cited CEC Sikandar Sultan Raja and the four members of the ECP as respondents.

Raja contended that the ECP has still not acted upon the majority judgment, and completed the process of election of women and non-Muslim on reserved seats in the National Assembly as well as the provincial assemblies.

He stated that this deliberate and contumacious failure to act in accordance with the judgment renders the CEC and ECP members liable to proceedings for the contempt of court.

A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 2024 delivered five separate short orders. Eight judges of Supreme Court, comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, declared that 39 returned MNAs, out of 80 returned candidates, who in their nomination forms and affidavits mentioned PTI are the returned candidates of that political party, while the remaining 41 candidates shall, within 15 days, file a statement duly-signed and notarised stating that he or she contested the General Election as a candidate of the PTI. If any such statement(s) is/are filed, the Commission shall forthwith but in any case, within seven days thereafter give notice to the political party concerned to file, within 15 working days, a confirmation that the candidate contested the General Election as its candidate.

Former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan disagreed with the majority judgment and passed separate orders.

The joint judgment of ex-CJP Faez and Justice Jamal objected to giving 41 independent candidates an option that they may join PTI by submitting declarations about their affiliation with PTI and to obtain certificates of their nomination by PTI, within a period of 15 days.

Ex-CJP Faez, in an additional note, pointed out constitutional violations and illegalities in the majority’s short order of 12 July 2024, and the majority’s detailed judgment of 23 September 2024, the order/clarification of 14 September, 2024 and the clarification of 18 October 2024. He maintained that by conducting hearing in chambers the majority of the judges effectively legislated, because neither the Constitution nor any law permits what they did.

Justice Yahya Afridi’s verdict stated that the PTI fielded its candidates for seats in the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies in the General Elections, 2024. But none was allowed or recognised by ECP to contest elections for the general or the reserved seats, as the candidate of PTI. And yet, for reasons not known, the matter has not been agitated by PTI before the apex court. He wrote that in fact, at the very end of the proceedings of the appeals against the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s judgment which spanned over a month from 3rd June 2024 to 12th July 2024, only one application was filed by PTI and Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and that too for their impleadment, as interveners, to assist this Court in the appeals. He noted that there was no specific prayer for a definite declaration in favour of the PTI for allotment of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024