ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)’s counsel proposed three sets of relief that the Constitutional Bench may grant in reserved seats case, which the majority judgment has allotted to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC’s YouTube channel.
Faisal Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of the SIC, argued that the court again and again has asked what kind of relief could be given in this instant case. He said there are three categories of relief. First, set aside the majority judgment and dismiss the SIC’s appeal and uphold the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s verdict. Second, the majority judgment is substituted with the judgment of any minority judgment. He said the majority judgment could be substituted with the judgment of either with the judgment of Justice Yahya Afridi or Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Third, the majority judgment is set aside and the appeal
of the SIC is decided after rehearing.
During the proceeding, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired from the counsel whether he considers the PTI elected candidates are independents. He asked why none of the 80 candidates came forward. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said if they are independent candidates then the SIC role ends in this case.
Justice Musarrat inquired on which symbol Hamid Raza contested the general elections. She noted that the SIC’s election symbol was “Horse”, but Hamid contested election on the symbol of “Clock”. She further asked why Hamid Raza had not contested election on the platform of the SIC.
On the question why the review petition should be dismissed, Faisal contended that a certificate which is filed by the lawyer with the petition is of critical importance; as if the grounds for review proved false then there are penal consequences of it.
The SIC’s counsel pleaded that the review petition could be filed by only those who were before the Court either in the original case or the appeal. He said some of the individuals who were not party in the appeal were allowed to file review petitions on the basis of the apex court’s judgment in HM Saya.
Justice Mandokhail questioned why a person aggrieved by the apex court’s judgment could not approach the court. He said, suppose, the Supreme Court passes a judgment which infringes the right of a party/ person who was not party before the Court in the original case then why should not the court hear him.
Justice Mandokhail noted that there is no mention of a party in the constitution or the Supreme Court Rules for review of any judgment or order. How come the Supreme Court, which is the final court, can pass a judgment or order without hearing a person or party, which could be affected by the judgment?
Faisal argued that the court should not have allowed Hina Chugttai to file the review petition, as her party, PML-N, was before the court in the reserved seats case. He contended that if her petition was allowed then why an identical application of Kanwal Shauzaib was dismissed. “What is not good for one is also not good for (the) other”.
The bench noted that neither Kanwal Shauzaib nor her party (the PTI) filed an appeal against the order of the ECP, and Peshawar High Court.
Faisal, earlier, argued that the majority judgment declared that all the candidates who had contested election as an independent are now the members of PTI in the parliament. Justice Mandokhail corrected by saying not all but only those who have mentioned in their nomination PTI, while others; i.e., 41 candidates were asked that they could join any political party.
Faisal said since the Election Commission has not implemented the majority judgment; therefore, they continue to remain my members. He said that the ECP recognises the independents as the SIC members.
Justice Mazhar said but after the judgment they approached the Election Commission and filed the declarations that they are members of PTI, as they themselves decide that they have joined PTI.
The case was adjourned until tomorrow (May 29).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.