The Supreme Court on Monday suspended the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) verdict denying the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) — the new home for PTI lawmakers-elect — reserved seats for women and minorities.
The development came as a three-member bench — headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah — took up an SIC appeal against the PHC order.
The Supreme Court on Monday took up a petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) — the new home for PTI lawmakers-elect — against the denial of reserved seats for women and minorities.
The SIC had earlier been joined by PTI-backed independent candidates after they won the Feb 8 elections as their party had been deprived of its electoral symbol ‘bat’.
In a 4-1 verdict in March, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had ruled that the SIC was not entitled to claim quota for reserved seats “due to having non curable legal defects and violation of a mandatory provision of submission of party list for reserved seats”.
The commission had also decided to distribute the seats among other parliamentary parties, with the PML-N and the PPP becoming major beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the verdict was rejected by the PTI as unconstitutional.
Later the same month, while ruling on an SIC plea, the PHC had dismissed an SIC plea challenging the ECP decision and denied it reserved seats.
In April, the SIC filed a petition — moved by party chief Sahibzada Hamid Raza — before the SC seeking to set aside the PHC judgment.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui appeared before the court today as the SIC counsel, while Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan was also summoned during the hearing.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, Siddiqui came to the rostrum to present his arguments.
He informed the court that PTI-backed independent candidates who had won the general elections had joined the SIC.
Justice Shah then asked if seven candidates were still part of the National Assembly as independents. When Justice Minallah asked if the PTI was a “registered [political] party”, the lawyer replied in the affirmative.
Here, Justice Shah observed, “It is a registered political party [but] just did not take part in the elections.”
“Within how many days must independent candidates join a party?” Justice Mazhar asked, to which Siddiqui replied that such MNAs-elect have to join a party within three days of their winning notification.
Justice Minallah then asked, “If a political party does not have an electoral symbol, will its candidates lose their right to represent [their party]?”
The counsel responded: “A political party can become a parliamentary party after contesting the [general] elections. Another situation is that a political party does not take part in elections but winning independent lawmakers join that party.”
Here, Justice Shah asked under what formula reserved seats were distributed among political parties. “Would a political party get reserved seats according to the seats it has won or can it also get more [than its share]?” he asked.
Siddiqui then answered, “Any political party, under any circumstances, cannot get more than its share of reserved seats.”
Justice Minallah observed that a political party could only get reserved seats according to the number of general seats it had won.
“Where is it written in the law that the remaining [reserved] seats should be distributed among the same political parties?” Justice Shah asked.
“We have to protect the public mandate. The real issue is of the public mandate,” he observed.
Justice Minallah then asked, “Where is it written in the law that a political party cannot contest elections upon not receiving an electoral symbol?”
Advocate Salman Akram Raja, who contested the Feb 8 polls as a PTI-backed independent, then said the same question had been asked in a court before the elections.
“One thing is decided — a party would only get reserved seats according to the representation it has [in the assemblies],” Justice Minallah remarked.
“How is it possible that someone’s mandate is handed over to someone else?” Justice Shah wondered.
“For the first time, a major political party was deprived of its electoral symbol,” Justice Minallah observed.
At this point during the hearing, the court summoned the ECP officials.
When the hearing resumed at 11:30am after a short break, the AGP and ECP officials appeared before the court.
