PML-N, PPP, JUI-F, PTI-P oppose SIC's plea seeking reserved seats

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday adjourned the hearing of Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) plea against the Peshawar High Court’s verdict that denied it reserved seats for women and minorities until tomorrow (Tuesday).

The development came as the 13-member full court bench of the Supreme Court took up the SIC’s plea challenging the PHC’s judgment regarding the reserved seats.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, comprised Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

On May 6, a three-member SC bench headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah, suspended the PHC verdict and referred the matter to the judges’ committee for the formation of a larger bench since the matter required constitutional interpretation.

Hearing

At the outset of the hearing, the SIC counsel Faisal Siddiqi reiterating grounds presented in a petition, stated that the allocation of the reserved seats to other parties was in violation of Articles 51(vi)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

The lawyer read out an ECP letter dated April 24 as stating that the SIC was a parliamentary party “having 82 general seats in the National Assembly” and was therefore entitled to reserved seats.

Here, CJP Isa asked Siddiqi who the beneficiaries were in the case and to give a detailed breakdown of the reserved seats distributed to the ruling coalition parties above the initially allocated ones. Complying with the order, the lawyer informed the court that there were 22 seats for women in total in the NA.

Upon a discrepancy in the numbers arising, Siddiqi pointed out that the electoral watchdog had “made a few mistakes” and had contradictory statements mentioning a total of “77 or 78” such reserved seats.

The lawyer recalled that the candidates had joined the SIC within three days of their victory notifications, at which Justice Mandokhail said, “Thinking of it, it is decided from before when the nomination papers are submitted […] that which candidate is from what party.”

He asked if the candidates who joined the SIC had received any party affiliation certificate during the nomination process. Justice Minallah repeated the same question: “When those 82 people filed their returns (notifications), did they show any political party’s affiliation?”

At Siddiqi’s response in the affirmative, Justice Mandokhail wondered how they were then called independent candidates. The SIC counsel responded that the ECP had told the candidates they could not contest the elections as a PTI candidate but as an independent.

“Then the question arises whether the ECP can declare someone nominated by the party and who also wishes to contest as that party’s candidate as an independent. And secondly, does that candidate have the right that once they submit the [nomination] papers, they quit that party?” Justice Mandokhail asked.

Here, CJP Isa asked Siddiqi if any of the beneficiary parties were “supporting” the SIC, to which the lawyer responded with a smile.

The counsels of the PML-N, the PPP, the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) and the PTI-Parliamentarians (PTI-P) then came to rostrum one by one and informed the court that they opposed the SIC’s petition. No counsel was representing the PML-Q, the Awami National Party (ANP) or the Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party (IPP).

Later, the hearing on SIC’s plea on reserved seats was adjourned until tomorrow.