The Supreme Court on Monday resumed hearing on a petition by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), backed by PTI-backed candidates, challenging the denial of reserved assembly seats to women and minorities.
A full bench of 13 judges, including Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan, Afghan, summoned to direct broadcast of the meeting on the website of the supervisory board and the YouTube channel.
After the February 8 election, PTI-backed independent candidates joined the SIC after the PTI lost its election symbol ‘bat’ due to the Supreme Court ruling.
In a 4-1 verdict in March, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) ruled that the SIC could not claim reserved seats due to serious legal deficiencies and failure to submit a mandatory party list for such seats.
As a result, the ECP redistributed these seats among other parliamentary parties, benefiting mainly the PML-N and the PPP with 16 and 5 more seats respectively, while the JUI-F won four seats.
In the same month, the Peshawar High Court dismissed the SIC’s plea challenging the ECP’s decision to deny them reserved seats.
On May 6, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court suspended the PHC’s verdict regarding the allocation of reserved seats beyond those originally allocated to political parties.
Following a Supreme Court directive, the ECP subsequently suspended the announcement of victory to 77 lawmakers, resulting in the ruling coalition losing its two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
At the end of May, a full court was convened to hear the case, with all judges except Justice Musarrat Hilali present.
During the June 3 hearing, Justice Mandokhail noted that the public voted for PTI-nominated candidates rather than independents in the February 8 elections.
Justice Shah suggested that the dispute could be resolved if the ECP allowed former independent candidates three more days to decide whether to join another political party.
In subsequent hearings, the judges examined the ECP’s decision and the Supreme Court’s January 13 verdict, which stripped the PTI of the “bat” symbol.
Chief Justice Isa defended the January 13 verdict despite criticism from Justice Akhtar, who argued that the PTI had lost its symbol due to a chain of errors triggered by the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Lawyers representing SIC and favored parties like PPP and PML-N have been given two full days to wrap up their arguments starting from the current hearing.
On Saturday, the ECP justified its decision to deny reserved SIC seats to women and non-Muslims through an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by senior counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand.
The ECP argued that the SIC did not qualify for reserved seats because it did not meet the constitutional criteria to be a political party under Articles 51(6)(d), 56(6)(e) and 106(3)(c) of the Constitution.
In addition, the SIC did not submit the priority list (Form 66) for the reserved seats in time as required by the election schedule.
The ECP also pointed out that Article 3 of the SIC constitution restricts party membership to adult Muslims only, which is contrary to the constitutional provisions on freedom of association, freedom of religion and equality of citizens (Articles 17, 20 and 25).
Today’s hearing
PTI-SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui appeared before the court and started presenting arguments on behalf of SIC.
Siddiqui emphasized that the court should interpret the constitution in a progressive manner, “Justice Mandukhel has given a similar interpretation in his recent judgement,” he added.
CJP Isa also asked whether we should ignore the natural meaning of the Constitution and if so, why.
Faisal Siddiqui observed, “The fundamental issue revolves around the purpose of the constitutional provisions.”
Justice Mandukhel asked why special seats should be allotted to those who did not participate in the elections.
Justice Saadat argued that strict adherence to the constitutional wording risked rendering his intent ineffective, adding the SIC was declared a non-political party.
Justice Minallah observed that once a political party loses its electoral symbol, it ceases to be a political party.
He further pointed out that PTI was an unregistered political party and that the ECP had categorized it as an unregistered political entity.
The Chief Justice again asked why PTI members would join another party when PTI is still considered a political party.
He added that this position contradicts the party’s own argumentation.
Siddiqui’s counsel informed the court that a review of PTI’s intra-party elections is pending.
