TERENCE J SIGAMONY

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) questioned if reviews are allowed then which judgment would prevail, as the majority verdict granted relief to a political party (PTI), which was not before the Court.

A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24 had passed five separate orders. Eight judges comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed HasanAzhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan passed one set of order, declaring Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI) is eligible for reserved seats, while Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel released separate note.

Similarly, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote their own independent opinions.

A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Monday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC’s YouTube channel.

Justice Amin observed that the main issue in Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)’s appeal against the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s judgment was reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, which has not been decided. He stated that none of 80 independent candidates, which had joined the SIC, were neither before ECP, nor PHC and the apex court.

The Court on May 22, 2025 dismissed SIC’s three applications, pertaining to the composition of the bench; same numerical strength, which heard the original case should hear the review petitions; and that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment. The bench, however, allowed live-streaming of review petitions hearing.

The lawyers of the ECP, PPP and PML-N informed the bench they have filed a written submission. Justice Amin told the SIC counsels to get the copy of their submission from the SC Office, and adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday). Sikandar Bashir, appearing on behalf of the Commission, stated that the ECP has not waived its right of rebuttal.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned that if the reviews are allowed then which judgment would prevail. Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats of PML-N and PPP tickets, but were de-seated due to the SC’s order, contended that the petitions have been filed against the majority judgment. He said if the reviews are allowed then the majority judgment would be overturned as no one has challenged the minority opinions.

Justice Mandokhail asked; “Can I change my views.” Makhdoom replied “Yes you can.” He argued that the judgment on timeline is beyond the jurisdiction of the apex court. He submitted that Justice NaeemAkhtar Afghan, in his note, stated that to change the timeline, described in Article 51 of the Constitution, for joining a political party by the independents after notification of their victory, is like re-writing the constitution.

He said that the justice is administered within the fourwalls of the constitution, adding the Court has power to interpret the constitution and laws, but cannot rewrite them.

Makhdoom contended that the majority judgment not only quashed the ECP notification, but also allotted reserved seats to the PTI, and changed the time-limit, given in the constitution.

The Court noted that the PTI existed before and after the general elections, but had not contested elections on a particular symbol. Justice MusarratHilali said the symbol is for the general public, if it is not given to the party then it does not disenfranchise the party. She noted that Chairman SIC Hamid Raza has himself contested elections on the ticket of PTI Nazriati. She inquired that when a party is not in the Parliament then how reserved seats could be allotted to it.

Justice Hilali also questioned on what grounds the reserved seats were given to the PTI, when it was neither before the ECP, PHC and even the SC. “It seems that suomoto kind of notice was taken in this regard.”

Justice Mandokhail said that he could not understand that when some candidates who mentioned in their nomination papers, PTI and had its certificates then why after winning the polls joined SIC, which was not in the Parliament. Had they not done so they could have reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the National Assembly.

Justice Mandokhail questioned whether under Article 187 of the Constitution there is any limit in the SC power. Makhdoom said that the election disputes should be treated like civil disputes where the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff.

He said that PTI’s Women Wing leader application was neither allowed nor dismissed; adding the prayer in her petition was that she be permitted to implead party to assist the Court and not necessary party.

Justice Mandokhail said that the presiding officers and returning officers failed to perform their duties in accordance with the law and constitution during February 2024 general election. Should the SC shut its eyes, he asked Makhoom.