Islamabad (Web Desk): Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday adjourned 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 were broadcast live on the SC’s website and its YouTube channel.
During the hearing today, the lawyer for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) presented four legal arguments, stating that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had not conducted intra-party elections according to the law.
He argued that Barrister Gohar's signature as a chairman on PTI tickets was invalid as there was no legal PTI organisation at the time. The party ticket bears the signature of Barrister Gohar as chairman.
At the time of issuing the ticket, the PTI did not have a legal organizational structure. He stated that party's organization did not exist due to the failure to conduct proper intra-party elections.
Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the party tickets were issued on December 22, while the intra-party elections case decision came on January 13, during which Barrister Gohar was the chairman.
ECP’s counsel Sikander Bashir Mohmand mentioned that the electoral body had nullified the intra-party elections on December 23.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the ECP's decision was suspended on December 26, while Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked for clarification on where and by whom the mistake was made.
The ECP’s lawyer explained that many candidates did not mention their party affiliation, which is why they were considered independent.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail emphasized that the crucial element is the party ticket; without it, a candidate will be considered independent.
The ECP’s lawyer agreed, stating that he and the Justice were on the same page.
Justice Mandokhail responded, "Tear the page, I don't want to be on the same page."
The lawyer argued that the party tickets issued by Barrister Gohar held no legal status.
He said that SIC Chairman Sahebzada Hamid Raza could have issued party tickets but did not.
“Raza had submitted PTI's party ticket with his nomination papers, although he mentioned his affiliation with the SIC, allied with PTI,” the lawyer argued.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi highlighted that the returning officer had accepted Raza's papers. The ECP's lawyer clarified that Raza had submitted a declaration for PTI Ideological.
Justice Shahid Waheed inquired if Raza was asked for clarification before being declared independent.
The lawyer responded that Raza had requested the shuttlecock symbol and submitted PTI's party ticket.
Justice Munib Akhtar questioned the relevance of intra-party elections, while Justice Ayesha Malik noted that this situation would disturb the election schedule.
The court inquired under which law PTI deserved special treatment.
The CJP remarked that the PTI election issue had been pending with the election commission for years.
Justice Akhtar remarked that the issue was about the legality of the elections, not their occurrence.
The lawyer mentioned that under Article 218(3), the PTI could be granted leniency, but Kanwal Shauzab's petition was inadmissible as she was not an affected party.
Lawyer Mohmand added that PTI members were not part of the SIC.
Justice Yahya Afridi stated that six candidates were declared independent by the ECP.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked if PTI candidates could be given three days to join the party, which the lawyer deemed impossible.
Justice Athar Minallah pointed out that no party registration was cancelled by the SC's decision.
Lawyer Kamran Murtaza supported the ECP, noting a "printing error" that confused minority representation.
After the ECP's arguments, PTI Chairperson Barrister Gohar took the stand, stating that he had submitted both party and independent nomination papers, and accused the ECP of hiding documents from the court.
Lawyer Kamran Murtaza stated that Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) agreed with the ECP's arguments.
Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) lawyer Shehzad Shaukat adopted the arguments of Makhdoom Ali Khan. Kamran Murtaza clarified that there was a misunderstanding regarding minority representation in the party.
Justice Mandokhail questioned the election commission's correctness, and Murtaza confirmed their support for the constitutional institution.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Muslim League -Nawaz (PML-N) Barrister Haris Azmat submitted written arguments to the court.
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 PML-N and PPP with 16 and five additional seats respectively, while 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).