ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, accepting the review petitions, issued notices to the respondents in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats in the National Assemblies and the provincial assemblies.
However, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi declined to issue notices and said they will write their notes and give reasons regarding the matter.
Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said the Court has issued notice even to the contemnor (ECP), which has not implemented the apex court’s judgment.
The review petitions were filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the apex court’s verdict of July 12, 2024, which had declared the PTI eligible for the reserved seats. A 13-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, on Tuesday, heard the review petition of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Peoples’ Party and the ECP.
The notices were issued in the PTI contempt petition against the Chief Election Commissioner for not implementing the Supreme Court in reserved seats. The notice was also issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan under Rule XXVII of Supreme Court Rules.
Barrister Haris Azmat, appearing on behalf of PML-N, contended that in the short order and the detailed judgment of the majority judges reserved seats were given to the PTI despite the fact it was not before the apex court in appeal against the Peshawar High Court verdict. Sunni Ittehad Council, which had filed the appeal, came down to “zero”. He argued that every party is bound by its pleading, adding a party, which did not agitate the issue of reserved seats before any forum was given all seats.
Justice Ayesha questioned how this ground could be taken up in review, adding scope of review is limited and it is not like appeal where new grounds could be argued. She told the counsel that the issues which he was arguing were heard at great length in appeal and were addressed in the majority judgment. “You have to point out what illegality is in the judgment.”
Justice Jamal inquired from Haris if he succeeded in persuading the bench to issue notices to the respondents then what would be the fate of his judgment. Ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had issued their separate judgment in the reserved seats case, which recommended that the independent candidates who had contested elections on the PTI symbol would be PTI parliamentarians.
Justice Mazhar asked the PML-N lawyer that he has to show error floating on the surface of the judgment. Haris then mentioned that the PTI was not before the Court, adding that even one of the members of the bench was perplexed how the majority judgment gave seats to the PTI.
Justice Jamal stated that in his judgment they had recommended that the matter of reserved seats should be remanded to the ECP, with the direction to redistribute the seats in accordance with nomination papers submitted before the returning officer.
Justice Ayesha asked the counsel that the Commission was required to uphold the constitutional provisions. She stated that the issue of giving reserved seats to PTI was dealt with in the judgment. Whether it is right or wrong, but the ECP was supposed to implement the judgment.
Haris contended that the constitutional provision is very clear that within three days of notification the independent candidates have to join any party. However, the judgment instead of three days provided 15 days. Justice Hilali questioned whether any notice was issued to the PTI in appeal. She also inquired whether the PTI as a political party contested the general elections. The PML-N lawyer submitted that only one application was filed on behalf of a PTI woman, whose name was mentioned in the PTI reserved seats list.
Justice Ayesha asked the PML-N lawyer to inform whether the Commission was not bound by the constitution and if a body is not performing its duty then what could be its consequences. She further asked whether the Commission implemented the judgment or not, and how the PML-N is aggrieved by the majority verdict? How is the review petition maintainable without implementing the judgment?
Justice Rizvi pointed out that a contempt petition is pending against the ECP. Justice Mazhar questioned whether the parties have filed additional grounds for review in their petitions. When the ECP lawyer started arguments, Justice Ayesha inquired from him how the Commission can consider the party in the review. Sikandar Bashir, representing the ECP, contended that the Commission was before the Peshawar High Court, adding the apex court decided the appeal without issuing notice to the PTI.
Justice Ayesha said a number of directions were issued to the ECP, and asked whether the Commission implemented them. Justice Aqeel asked the counsel whether an adjudicating body could file a review petition without enforcing the apex court’s judgment. Justice Hashim Kakar also questioned regarding implementation of judgment?
Sikandar responded that the judgment was partially implemented. Upon that, Justice Ayesha questioned how come the ECP can pick and choose, it complied only with those portions of the judgment, which it liked. Justice Aqeel remarked why not this Court first take up the contempt petition and hold the Commission libel for contempt for not implementing the SC judgment.
The counsel stated that they will implement the majority judgment to some extent. Upon that, Justice Jamal asked what he meant by saying to some extent, adding he was not interested in this case, but wanted that the Court judgment be implemented, adding; “We respect the ECP and the same we expect from it.”
Justice Ayesha stated; “We are not interested in entertaining the ECP petition, as it had not implemented the judgment.” “I have read the points raised in your petition, and have given my mind. How you being a body to conduct elections could become a party in this dispute,” she told Sikandar.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.