Timeline has to be set by court when constitutional timeline is not met: PTI counsel

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI)’s counsel told the Constitutional Bench that the majority judgment in reserved seats has not violated the Constitution by extending time for 41 independents to join the PTI.

Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that eight judges of the Supreme Court have dealt with the coercive measure adopted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the PTI candidates had opted to contest elections as independent.

An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) and the ECP. The proceeding was live-streamed on SC’s You Tube channel.

Raja argued that the timeline has to be set by the Court when constitutional timeline is not met. The eight judges considering all the facts and the precedents gave relief to the PTI.

Justice Amin inquired when the Court hearing an appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) under Article 185 of the Constitution then can use Article 187. Raja, citing cases of NRO and extension to the Chief of Army Staff, argued that deviation had taken place in the past as well, but the Supreme Court cured them. He said judgment of Justice Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez also recognised the deviation and cured it by declaring that 39 independents are PTI candidates and entitled to reserved seats.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said to extent of 39 independents they had done that on the basis of undisputed facts. Raja contended that the majority judgment had also looked at all the facts and the precedents and came up with two different sets of relief, adding the factual finding cannot be undone.

Justice Amin said till date, none of the 80 independents has disputed that he or she has not joined the SIC independently. Justice Mandokhail noted that the elections process starts by filing nomination papers, adding the candidates who have mentioned in their nomination papers independent then why not they accept those nomination papers?

At the onset of the proceedings, Raja explained why the PTI candidates contested general elections 2024 as independents. He submitted that after the Supreme Court’s judgment on the PTI’s intra-party elections, the ECP disallowed party symbol to them, and also derecognised the PTI, adding the ECP in its 9th February order declared all the PTI candidates as independents, including those who had contested on PTI tickets and won the elections.

He told that there was great confusion at time as they were told that all the PTI candidates would be treated as independents, “therefore our returned candidates had joined the SIC, as we had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) before us that a party which had not contested elections and won any seats, but was distributed reserved seats.” “We had the understanding that ultimately the will of the people would prevail.”

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the BAP had contested the election and secured seats, adding it had some members in the Balochistan provincial assembly and five in the Senate, if not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Raja replied that they had assumption that the BAP party had no seats in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies.

Justice Mandokhail said despite various difficulties some of the PTI members contested on the PTI tickets and became MNAs. He questioned when PTI was in the National Assembly then why 80 independent returned candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). He asked whether those six MNAs had claimed reserved seats on their strength?

Raja replied that till 11th February 2024, the ECP treated them (the six MNAs) also as independents. “If six lawmakers had been recognised as PTI then the independent candidates could have joined the PTI instead of the SIC.”

Justice Mandokhail then asked Raja that you filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (LHC),praying that you should be declared as PTI candidate instead of independent.

Raja informed that his petition was disposed of by a divisional bench of LHC, which included Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, without any order and the matter was remanded to the ECP. “I came to the Supreme Court against that order I have challenged the vires of Explanation of Rule 94 of The Election Rules, but the SC office returned my petition on 2nd February, 2024 by raising objections.”

Justice Mandokhail then asked him whether you or any of the PTI leaders till date has challenged that order? Raja responded: “We came to the Supreme Court not once, but twice, but our application was returned by the Registrar’s Office, and we were told that the Supreme Court will not entertain any election related application.” Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned why not any of the PTI leaders filed any chamber appeal. The case was adjourned until today (Thursday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025