Reserved seats case: SC CB accepts KP govt's plea, issues notices to PML-N, PPP & ECP
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in reserved seats case, while accepting the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provincial government's application, issued notices to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Monday, heard the review petitions of PML-N, PPP and the ECP.
The proceeding was live-streamed on the Supreme Court's YouTube channel.
Advocate General KP submitted that the KP government and the KP speaker are the necessary and the proper parties; therefore, they should be impleaded in review petitions against the Supreme Court majority judgment of eight judges. 'The applicants have valuable rights and interests in the matter in issue i.e. allocation of reserved seats, which is directly affected by the consolidated judgment dated 12-07-2024,' he stated.
During the proceeding, Faisal Siddiqui, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued that Article 254 of the constitution seems to apply to his case, as when any act or thing is required by the Constitution to be done within a particular period and it is not done within that period, the doing of the act or thing shall not be invalid or otherwise, ineffective by reason only that it was not done within that period.
Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned how when the PTI-backed independents had already joined the SIC within three days of their victory notification by the ECP. He said Article 254 is not to rectify mistake or error, but it is for coverage of an act or thing that is required to be done in a particular period and is not done within that particular period.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that if the independents have not joined the SIC then you (the SIC) are nobody before the Court. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar said if a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that particular manner. He said when Article 51 says that the independent candidates have to join any political parties within three days of their victory notification then why the majority judgment gave them 15 days to join PTI.
Justice Mandokhail noted that the majority judgment has not declared 41 candidates, out of 80, as members of a political party then it means those 41 candidates are still independents, and the ECP had made a mistake only upto 39 candidates. He said those candidates who in their nomination paper had mentioned that they are independent then the Court has no right to tell them to join such and such party.
Faisal Siddiqui argued that Justice Yahya's judgment said that all the 80 independent candidates' cases be remanded to the Commission. He then contended that the majority judgment stated that the independents could not join the SIC.
Justice Mandokhail corrected him by saying that the independents could not join the SIC only for the purpose of reserved seats, adding how come anyone be barred from joining a political party, then it would be a violation of Article 17(2) of the constitution.
Justice Amin noted that all the 13 judges in their judgments declared that if a political party is not in the Parliament then it is not entitled for the reserved seats. Justice Mandokhail said for reserved seat a political party is required to contest elections and win at least one seat. He then asked from Faisal how many independent candidates had mentioned PTI in their nomination papers?
Justice Mandokhail noted that only 14 candidates, out of 80, described in nomination forms that they are affiliated with PTI and filed the PTI's certificate with their papers before the Commission. 'But we thought the ECP might have misplaced documents of some candidates therefore wrote in judgment that 39 candidates are members of PTI.
Justice Mazhar said that the majority judgment despite the fact that the PTI was not necessary and proper party before the Court granted it relief by invoking Article 254, adding Rule 94 of the Election Rules was struck down by exercising the suo moto jurisdiction.
He further said as the seats were given to PTI by the majority judgment, therefore now the SIC is espousing their (PTI) right. Faisal said; 'I am neither supporting the SIC, nor the PTI, but only support the majority judgment.' He mentioned that the 90 per cent judgment of Justice Mandokhail and ex-CJP Qazi Faez is similar to the majority judgment.
The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'ECP justified in case of 41 candidates'
The constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to respondents on a petition filed by the PTI led Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government to become a party in a case related to allocation of reserved seats to Imran Khan's party. During the hearing, the counsel for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)a party comprising PTI-backed independent parliamentariansstated that the SIC intended to file a review petition against the CB's decision to dismiss its objections to the bench. The eleven-member CB, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the petitions challenging the SC's July 2024 majority order for allocation of reserved seats to the PTI. At the outset, Justice Khan remarked that the SC granted a relief to the PTI initially meant for the SIC. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. Later, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024 general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court through a majority of 8 to 5 resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination papers' submission could do that now within a period of 15 days. The ruling coalition later filed a review petition against the SC ruling, which the CB took up in May. During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that the SC verdict came on January 13, whereas nomination papers were submitted in December, and many candidates had then declared their independent status. Siddiqi responded that the ECP had withdrawn PTI's symbol on December 22, 2023. He said all 11 judges of the SC larger bench had stated the ECP's decision to declare PTI members as independents was illegal. Justice Mandokhail remarked that the agreement among the 11 judges applied only to those members who had submitted nomination papers and party tickets from the PTI. "Only 14 PTI candidates had submitted the party certificate but we assumed that perhaps others had also submitted it and it may have been misplaced. That was why we considered 39 members." The court adjourned the hearing until today. Siddiqi will resume his arguments on behalf of the SIC.
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC judge disputes legality of new court rules
Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Justice Babar Sattar has raised objections to the newly notified Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025, asserting they lack legal authority as they were not approved by a full court. In a letter addressed to all ten IHC judges, Justice Sattar stated that he was not aware of any full court meeting convened to consider the enactment of the Rules or the repeal of the rules. "The Rules are, therefore, devoid of legal authority and have been issued in breach of the requirements of Article 208 as well as those of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, as adopted by the Islamabad High Court," he argued. The letter, along with a copy of the new rules, has been submitted to the Supreme Court during hearings on a petition filed by five IHC judges challenging the transfer of three judges from other high courts to the IHC. Justice Sattar urged his fellow judges to undertake corrective measures without delay, stressing the potential consequences for IHC staff. He noted that if rules are challenged or it otherwise emerges that the high court has itself purported to enact rules in breach of requirements of Article 208 of the Constitution and the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, "it will cause great embarrassment to this high court". He added that it would also prejudice "the rights and entitlements of the employees of this Court". He noted having received S.R.O. 585(1)/2025 dated March 25, 2025, which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan on April 10, 2025, notifying the Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025. "The preamble states that the Rules have been enacted in exercise of authority under Article 208 of the Constitution, which says that the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court and the Islamabad High Court, with the approval of the President and a High Court, with the approval of the Governor concerned, may make rules providing for the appointment by the Court of officers and servants of the Court and for their terms and conditions of employment." Justice Sattar contended that constitutional authority under Article 208 rests with the full high court. "The authority under Article 208 of the Constitution is vested in the High Court which is defined in Article 192 of the Constitution as consisting of a Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. The power created by Article 208 can neither be delegated nor be exercised in any manner other than by the High Court itself i.e. all Judges of the High Court in a collegiate manner." He further pointed to legal limitations regarding the delegation of such powers, noting that it was a settled proposition that discretionary authority cannot be sub-delegated unless the law which creates such authority provides for its further delegation. Justice Sattar added that no such delegation exists under the existing provisions. "In any event, the power under Article 208 of the constitution has not been delegated as is evident from the provisions of Rule 5(2) of Chapter 10, Part A of Volume-V of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, adopted by the Islamabad High Court." He also cited case law on the matter. "The manner in which the High Court can exercise authority in terms of Article 208 of the Constitution has also been explained in Muhammad Shabbir vs. Registrar, Islamabad High Court and another (Judicial Service Appeal No. 03 of 2026)," he added. Meanwhile, another IHC judge, Justice Saman Riffat, also submitted her own letter to the SC. In her May 5 letter to the IHC registrar, Justice Riffat refers to the earlier notification regarding the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, published via Gazette Notification No. S.R.O.169(1)/2025 dated February 18, 2025. "As the letter dated 25-4-2025 informed her that the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025 have been published vide gazette Notification No.S.R.O.169(1)/2025 dated 18.02.2025." She referred to previous correspondence contradicting the registrar's claim. "Please recall that vide Letter dated 11-3-2025 you were informed that contrary to your assertion the Rules & Orders of the Lahore High Court. Lahore were in fact adopted by the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of this Court vide Notification No. 354/Legis/IHC dated 28-08-2019 and not by the Administration Committee. You were directed to provide all the amendments that have been made to the Rules & Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by the Administration Committees of this Court as claimed by you as well as the date on which the purported Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025 were framed and the names of the Members of the Administration Committee who framed the same." She further noted the absence of a reply. "Neither such information nor copy of the Rules has been provided despite lapse of 10 days since your last letter confirming their publication," she added. Justice Riffat reiterates her demand. "Once again you are directed to provide the information and documentation as well as the purported Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025," she added.
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Judge transfer needs full consensus: CB
Head of a constitutional bench (CB) of the apex court has observed that transfer of a judge from one high court to another is a process, which cannot be completed without the consent of all involved. "The president has the authority to transfer a judge but the process can end if the concerned judge or the chief justice of his own high court or the chief justice of the high court where he is being transferred or the chief justice of Pakistan does not agree with it," Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted. Justice Mazhar was heading a five-member CB, hearing the petitions filed against transfer of three judges of provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in February this year and the subsequent change in the capital's high court's seniority list. Barrister Salahuddin, counsel for the five IHC judges who have challenged the transfer, continued his rebuttal arguments, asserting that Article 200 of the Constitution applies only to sub-section 3. He argued that in civil service, a transfer from one department to another affects seniority, unlike in the judiciary where no deputation or merger of judges of two high courts takes place. Punjab Advocate General Amjad Pervez also filed a miscellaneous application during the hearing. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar inquired about the application, to which Pervez responded that he had submitted historical record of judicial transfers from 1947 to 1976 and acknowledged that while they weren not a party to the case, a notice under Rule 27-A had been issued to them. Justice Mazhar noted that the 27-A notice is specifically for becoming a party, and the advocate general should have followed the Attorney-General for Pakistan in presenting arguments. After the completion of the rebuttal, the court directed other counsels representing the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Tuesday. The hearing was then adjourned until today.
