Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday dismissed a plea from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) regarding its intra-party elections after the party declined to continue with the case, citing the recently enacted 26th Constitutional Amendment.
This amendment was passed by the coalition government in the National Assembly in the early hours of the day, following approval from the Senate.
The judicial reforms came into effect after President Asif Ali Zardari signed the bill into law upon the recommendation of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and including Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, was reviewing PTI's plea to revisit a previous ruling on its intra-party elections.
Earlier on January 13, the same bench had unanimously overturned a decision by the Peshawar High Court (PHC), affirming the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) finding that PTI's internal polls were "unconstitutional."
During the hearing today, PTI's lawyer Hamid Khan filed a petition for the formation of a larger bench to handle the review petition.
He referenced a prior case involving the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and the ECP to support his request.
CJP Isa responded by indicating that the two cases were not comparable and questioned PTI's reluctance to present their arguments.
“Say what you want to say to my face instead of saying it on television behind my back,” the CJP said.
Responding to this, the PTI lawyer claimed he could not argue against “an extremely biased person.”
The Chief Justice noted that the current petition did not raise this issue of bias.
Justice Hilali asked the PTI lawyer to clarify why he labeled the bench as biased.
After a tense exchange, PTI leader Barrister Ali Zafar asserted that the party would not be presenting arguments before this bench, stating, “This bench can no longer hear this case,” in reference to the recent judicial amendments.
CJP Isa retorted that he was not aware of any such amendment, as it had not been formally presented to him, asserting, “Don’t tell us what we can hear and what not.”
It is pertinent to mention that at the time of hearing, the constitutional changes had not yet been signed into law, which meant they were not applicable to the Supreme Court or its proceedings.
Lawyer Hamid reiterated the request for a larger bench, but the CJP maintained that a larger bench could not be established for a review petition.
Hamid Khan cited a previous majority decision from an 8-member SC bench in a case concerning reserved seats as justification.
However, CJP Isa clarified that the case he referenced had a pending review petition, stating, “We won’t comment on a case with a review petition pending.”
Following these discussions, Barrister Zafar and his legal team withdrew from the proceedings.
The then announced the dismissal of the plea, noting that PTI's lawyers had not presented arguments on the merits of the case.
The order concluded that “no error could be pointed out in the original decision.”
In response, lawyer Hamid requested that the order specify the reason for their failure to argue the case, stating, “Please note that I refused to give arguments before an extremely biased judge.”
