SC resumes hearing SIC's plea against denial of reserved seats

SC resumes hearing SIC's plea against denial of reserved seats

Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday resumed the hearing of Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) plea against denial of reserved seats for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.

A full court 13-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, is hearing the petition.

The proceedings are being broadcast live on the SC’s website and its YouTube channel.
During the last hearing on June 27, Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) lacked the authority to kick out any party from the elections.

The CJP had asked the ECP why the court shouldn't consider the candidates as belonging to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

Meanwhile, Justice Ayesha Malik questioned why the ECP declared the candidates as independent when they were in fact declaring their association with a political party.

Justice Muneeb, while referring to the top court’s earlier decision wherein it had upheld the ECP's decision to revoke the PTI's "bat" symbol, clarified that the SC had not intended to exclude the PTI from the polls.

During the last week's hearing, the had directed the ECP to provide PTI's list regarding reserved seats to other lawyers along with the certificates and declarations of the candidates.

It is pertinent to mention that following the February 8 elections, PTI-backed independent candidates joined SIC after the PTI lost its electoral symbol 'bat' due to a ruling by the apex court.

The ECP withdrew PTI’s electoral symbol, a move ratified by the Supreme Court.

The electoral body, in a 4-1 verdict ruled in March that SIC could not claim reserved seats due to significant legal flaws and failure to submit a mandatory party list for such seats.

Later, the electoral body redistributed these seats among other parliamentary parties, benefiting primarily Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) with 16 and five additional seats respectively, while Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) received four seats. PTI rejected this verdict as unconstitutional.

In the same month, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) dismissed an SIC plea challenging the ECP's decision to deny them reserved seats.

On May 6, a three-member Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah, suspended the PHC decision. The case was then referred to a larger bench due to its constitutional implications.

In late May, a full court had been constituted to hear the case, comprising all judges except Justice Musarrat Hilali.

As the case was taken up on June 3, Justice Mandokhail had noted that the public did not vote for independent candidates but those nominated by the PTI in the February 8 general elections.

Meanwhile, Justice Shah suggested that the controversy could be ended if the ECP gave the formerly independent candidate another three days to decide afresh whether to join another political party.

On June 22, the ECP justified its decision to deny reserved seats to SIC for women and non-Muslims through a statement submitted by Senior Counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand to the Supreme Court.

The electoral body argued that SIC did not qualify for reserved seats as it did not meet the constitutional criteria of being a political party under Articles 51(6)(d), 56(6)(e), and 106(3)(c) of the Constitution.

Additionally, SIC failed to submit a timely priority list (Form 66) for reserved seats as required by the election program.

The ECP also pointed out that Article 3 of SIC's constitution restricted party membership to adult Muslims only, which contradicted constitutional provisions on freedom of association, freedom to profess religion, and equality of citizens (Articles 17, 20, and 25).