PTI counsel says no time violation in 15-day window for independents
ISLAMABAD: The counsel of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) asserted that there is no violation of time-line in the majority judgment by granting 15 days to the 41 independents to join the PTI.
The judgment of eight judges in reserved seats has straight way declared that 39 independents, out of 80, were PTI candidates, while for 41 candidates laid down the mechanism for their joining the PTI. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and the ex-CJP Qazi Faez also ruled that 39 independents, who in their nomination paper mentioned PTI, are the PTI MNAs. Justice Yahya Afridi also had similar view.
Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that 11 judges had accepted the reality that injustice was caused to the PTI candidates in the general elections 2024. Defending the majority judgment, he argued that 15 days were given to 41 candidates to inform that on February 8, 2024 of which party they were member, and not to join a political party, adding the majority judgment did not give relief to the PTI, but to the people of Pakistan.
An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Friday, 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.
During the proceeding, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned why did Hamid Raza, who is chairman of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contested election as an independent candidate. Raja clarified that Hamid Raza in his nomination form instead of independent wrote the PTI-SIC alliance.
Justice Mandokhail asked Raja that if his argument is accepted then 11 judges’ judgment was wrong, and review should have been filed by the SIC rather than the ECP, the PML-N and the PPP. He said the Court cannot compel anyone to join such and such political party.
Justice Hilali also questioned whether voting is the fundamental rights? Her objection was that after birth a person does not have voting right automatically, rather he had to wait till the age of 18 years. Justice Baqar Ali Najafi said right of vote is subject to the law and a person can cast vote after attaining the age of 18, and he/she polls vote only when there are elections in his/her constituency.
Justice Najafi observed that there had been constitution deviation and the fundamental rights were violated in the past as well. He inquired from Raja what deviation did he see in the last elections, adding if the elections were non transparent and fair then why not the entire process of general elections 2024 declared null and void.
Raja responded that instead of striking down the elections the Court laid down the mechanism to rectify the wrongs committed. He submitted that in the past whenever the constitutional scheme was violated or deviated the apex court played its role to bring the situation back to normal, adding if the matter is of general public and the fundamental rights then it can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and Article 187 of the constitution, and under these provisions it has much greater and wider power.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar did not agree with him and said the High Court under Article 199 has greater power than the Supreme Court as it has power of habeas corpus and quo warran to.
Raja also contended that there was no issue that the election symbol was taken, but the worst thing happened was that the PTI was derecognised, the candidates were told that if they would write PTI in their nomination forms then those would not be accepted and forced them to write independent in the nomination papers. The violation was committed by the ECP under Article 51 of the constitution that a party was not recognised and its candidates were not allowed to contest election on PTI ticket. These things completely destroyed the sanctity of the elections, he added.
The PTI lawyer argued that the reason for joining the SIC was that they had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), which neither contested elections nor had any seat in the Assemblies despite that reserved seats were allocated to it.
Earlier, Raja argued that review petitions could be filed if some facts or provisions of law are overlooked, while the erroneous judgment is no ground for review. Similarly, no technical aspect comes in the way to challenge the judgment in review jurisdiction. He contended that a party has to establish that the fact or provision of law was overlooked.
The case is adjourned until Monday (June 23).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025