SC declares PTI ineligible for reserved seats

Business Recorder

20 hours ago

ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court with the majority of seven set aside the impugned judgment dated 12th July 2024, on the reserved seats of women and non-Muslims.
The 10-member bench on Friday after hearing the arguments of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel, Attorney General for Pakistan, and the lawyer of women parliamentarians, elected on the tickets of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) on reserved seats, passed a short order, the detailed reasoning would be announced later.
Initially, a 13-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, was constituted for the hearing of review petitions.
On the first hearing, held on May 6, 2025, 11 judges of 13-member bench accepting the review petitions issued notices to the respondents. However, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi rejected the petitions, and wrote separate note, while Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, at the verge of conclusion recused from the bench for certain reasons.
According to the short order, majority of seven judges – Justice Amin, Justice Musarrat, Justice Naeem, Justice Shahid, Justice Hashim, Justice Aamer and Justice Baqar Najafi – allowed all Civil Review Petitions, and set aside the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024, as a consequence thereof, Civil Appeal Nos 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored.
The order further stated that Justice Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats, but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of 41 seats.
Whereas Justice Muhammad and Justice Azhar also reviewed the judgment and allowed the review petitions with the rider that since the factual controversy or disputed questions of facts neither could be resolved by the Peshawar High Court nor this Court in original or review jurisdiction; therefore, directions are issued to the ECP to examine and consider the nomination papers/ declaration and other relevant documents of all 80 returned candidates by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats within 15 days from receiving the copy of this Short Order.
A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24, delivered five separate short orders. Eight judges – Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan declared that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, and to 41 independents granted 15 days' time to decide on joining the PTI.
Former Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Mandokhel in their order also accepted 39 candidates of the PTI, but considered 41 as independents. Justice Yahya Afridi though recognized PTI as political party, had directed the ECP to decide the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to political parties in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies. On the other hand, Justice Amin, and Justice Naeem had rejected the SIC appeal against the PHC verdict.
Onset of the proceedings, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar addressing Hamid Khan, lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council, said that he had good relation with him. 'However, you raised objections on the bench yesterday (Thursday).'
He then read his written statement, which stated; 'In the entire proceeding of this case all the counsels including Faial Siddiqui, Salman Akram Raja unequivocally expressed confidence in the bench. However, yesterday Hamid Khan during the course of his arguments raised objections on the bench, especially targeting the inclusion of the judges, including me, who were appointed judges of the apex court subsequent to the 26th Amendment, questioned the propriety of our participation in the adjudication of this case.'
He stated: 'Dignity and impartiality of the Court remained unchallenged throughout these proceedings, and there was broad consensus among all the parties, thus reflected faith in the bench. Judicial propriety and the appearance of impartiality remain paramount in maintaining the public confidence in the judiciary.
'In light of the objection raised and in deference to the principle of judicial propriety, irrespective of its merit, and the timing of the assertion I consider it appropriate to rescue myself from the hearing of this case. The recusal is made not from the admission or disqualification, but to uphold the dignity of the institution and integrity and objectivity of these proceedings, I thereby recused myself from the bench.'
When Justice Salahuddin Panhwar finished his statement, Hamid Khan said: 'Greatly appreciated.' However, Justice Amin responded; 'This is not the matter of appreciation', adding: 'this is because of your conduct.' While addressing Hamid Khan, the judge further said that you are the third counsel of the same party, whom we gave an opportunity to argue in this case.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said; 'In a case two counsels from the same party are never allowed, but we respected you as a senior counsel; therefore, provided you opportunity to argue the case; otherwise you were not entitled,' adding; 'You have misused it.'
After the recusal of Justice Salahuddin the members of the bench left the courtroom, and approximately 30 minutes later the 10-judge bench resumed the hearing.
Hamid Khan emphasized that the review petitions should be heard by the same numerical strength bench that had delivered the judgment. He then referred the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a reference was filed against him in the Supreme Judicial Council.
He submitted that a 10-member bench was hearing the review against the SC judgment by the 10 judges. However, in the middle of the hearings Justice Faisal Arab retired the then chief justice; therefore, included another judge (Justice Amin) in the bench hearing the review petitions of Justice Faez.
Hamid then contended that under Article 191A of the constitution the constitutional benches are constituted by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which is dominated by the executive members.
Justice Mandokhail told that this arrangement was due to 26th Amendment. He then asked from the SIC council do you accept the 26th Amendment? Then he told him to move on his next point. Hamid reacted; 'Do you stop me from arguing my case'.
Justice Mandokhail told him that 'you have 10 minutes to make your argument; otherwise, sit down.' Hamid replied: 'You are angry, do not hear the case just now.'
The conversation continued in a confrontational manner, with Justice Mandokhail telling him to sit down if he does not want to present his arguments.
'I know how to do my job, you should be careful with your words,' Justice Mandokhail said. 'I have skipped my mother's funeral to be here and you are joking.' He said the bench would not hear anything irrelevant and had already heard enough. 'We consider you a good lawyer, but what you are doing right now is not the job of a professional lawyer,' he added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025