Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday 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 hearing on Monday, the CJP remarked that the issue of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) intra-party elections had been coming to the fore for many years. The party was repeatedly requesting for time for the elections but it was an admitted fact that it could not hold the same despite taking a year time, he noted.
Sikandar Bashir, counsel for Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), in his arguments, said the PTI had issued party affiliation certificates and Form 66 with the signatures of Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali to its candidates, which were on the record under the Election Act.
At that time the PTI had not conducted the intra-party elections, he said, adding that the candidates should have file the party affiliation certificates along with the nomination papers to the ECP.
The lawyer said that the blank space specified for party affiliation in the nomination papers meant that the candidates were independent.
Sikandar Bashir said that as the PTI chairman was not elected at the time of submission of certificates, the nomination papers signed by him were not valid.
He said that Hamid Raza submitted his filed his nomination papers on December 22 and party affiliation certificate on January 13, declaring himself as the candidate of the SIC and mentioned alliance with the PTI.
There was no mention of alliance with the PTI in the nomination papers, he said.
To a query, Sikander Bashir said that the ECP did not itself declare a candidate as an independent. “I have seen the nomination papers of Hamid Raza in which he requested to declare him as an independent candidate,” he added. None of the documents of Hamid Raza matched with each other, he added.
The candidate should have filed the party affiliation certificate of SIC, the ECP’s lawyer said.
He further said that on February 8, the PTI informed the ECP about the intra-party elections.
The situation might have been different had the party announced its intra-party elections even on February 7, he added.
The ECP lawyer said that the case of Kanwal Shauzab should not be heard as she was not an affected party by the decision. She was in the PTI and heading the women workers wing.
The counsel, subsequently, concluded his arguments.
Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) adopted the arguments of SIC. However, the advocate generals of Punjab, Federation and Balochistan adopted the arguments of the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP.
AGP Mansoor Usman Awan argued that political parties were eligible for reserved seats only by winning election. The seats in assemblies are filled through general elections and then reserved seats, he said, adding that the reserved seats must be filled as the Constitution “aims to give representation to women and non-Muslims as well”.
He said that the formula relating to the reserved seats was fixed and did not change. “The formula tells how many general seats are required to get a reserved seat”.
The CJP remarked that the ECP was an independent constitutional body whose job was to conduct elections. “Tell us if there is any unconstitutional work, we will go into details. Same thing happens in every election, no loser has said that the elections were transparent.”
The top court sought documents and formula from the ECP under which the reserved seats were allotted to political parties in 2018 and 2024.
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).
