logo
CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug

CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug

Express Tribune19 hours ago

A constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the request of one of the PTI counsels to defer hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case on a daily basis.
Earlier, Salman Akram Raja, resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024 majority order of a full SC bench. He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution.
"After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007 several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled."
"The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated."
During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018, and 2024. He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion.
"However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats," he said.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how can the Supreme Court stop any politician from contesting elections independently.
"Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehman—being major party leaders—decide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?" he asked.
Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party's registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but that the SIC was not present in parliament, she said.
Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the Sindh High Court Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the 'Awam Dost' party. "Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]" The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term "Kaptaan ka Sipahi".
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI. Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible." "Either they were more sensible—or they had a higher tolerance for pressure," commended Justice Hilali.
Recalling the past political events, SIC's counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols.
"It was a Saturday—a holiday—but the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be. At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand?
He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP despite the fact that the ANP had not even held any elections "We had conducted elections but the ECP did not accept them. We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently," he said.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time while the PTI had already been given several years. "Your party constitution was made more foolproof—we can even say it's better than others," he noted
Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan's request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9: 30am today.
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.
As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, 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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court curbs judges' power in Trump birthright citizenship case
US Supreme Court curbs judges' power in Trump birthright citizenship case

Express Tribune

time2 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

US Supreme Court curbs judges' power in Trump birthright citizenship case

[1/2]Olga Urbina carries baby Ares Webster as demonstrators rally on the day the Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over U.S. President Donald Trump's bid to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, during a protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., US., May 15, 2025. REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship. The court ordered lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,' Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, 'The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case.' Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident (i.e., a green card holder). More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it — including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states, immigrant rights advocates, and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions. It asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department 'asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.' 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War. The amendment's citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally, or even to those lawfully present on temporary visas — such as students or workers. In a June 11–12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest were unsure or did not respond. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on immigration policy since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, the court allowed the administration to end temporary legal status previously granted to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But on May 16, the court kept in place its block on Trump's deportation of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting the administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship case on May 15. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order 'reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.' An 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark has long been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the ruling was narrower, applying only to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the United States.' Universal injunctions — which prevent a policy from being enforced against anyone, not just the suing parties — have been opposed by presidents of both parties. Proponents argue they are an efficient check on presidential overreach and have blocked actions deemed unlawful by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Justice Salahuddin Panhwar steps down from bench in reserved seats case
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar steps down from bench in reserved seats case

Express Tribune

time10 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Justice Salahuddin Panhwar steps down from bench in reserved seats case

Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself on Friday from the bench hearing the reserved seats case. An 11-member constitiutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan is currently hearing the case. In its short order on July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, positioning it as the largest party in the National Assembly. However, the National Assembly has not yet implemented the ruling, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have submitted review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's July 12 decision from last year. The hearing was briefly adjourned for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed proceedings. The decision comes after objections were raised regarding his participation in the case. Justice Panhwar, part of an 11-member bench, opted to step down from the case on the grounds of preserving the court's dignity. In his remarks, he mentioned that his past association with the case's key players, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to the objections. He emphasised that his recusal was necessary to protect the institution's integrity. But, he clarified, that it should not be seen as an admission of the objections' validity. The decision was met with mixed reactions in the courtroom. Advocate Hamid Khan lauded Justice Panhwar's step, but Justice Aminuddin Khan said that the situation stemmed from the conduct of the involved parties. Justice Jamal Mandokhail echoed this sentiment, highlighting that despite the controversy, Justice Panhwar was given a chance to speak even when two lawyers from the same party are generally not allowed to argue the case. On Thursday, the CB turned down the request by one of PTI's counsels to defer the hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case daily. Earlier, PTI's counsel advocate Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024, majority order of a full SC bench. He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution. Read: CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug "After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007, several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled." "The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated." During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018 and 2024. He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion. "However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats," he said. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how the apex court can stop any politician from contesting elections independently. "Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, being major party leaders, decide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?" he asked. Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party's registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but the SIC was not present in parliament, she said. Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the 'Awam Dost' party. "Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]?" asked Justice Rizvi. The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term "Kaptaan ka Sipahi". Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI. Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the Assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible." "Either they were more sensible or they had a higher tolerance for pressure," added Justice Hilali. Recalling past political events, SIC's counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols. "It was a Saturday, a holiday, but the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be. At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand? He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP even though the ANP had not even held any elections "We had conducted elections, but the ECP did not accept them. We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently," he said. Justice Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time, while the PTI had already been given several years. "Your party constitution was made more foolproof; we can even say it's better than others," he noted Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan's request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9.30am today. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023, order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, 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 SC.

K-P CM warns Centre of tit-for-tat response
K-P CM warns Centre of tit-for-tat response

Express Tribune

time15 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

K-P CM warns Centre of tit-for-tat response

Listen to article Rawalpindi Central Jail authorities on Thursday once again refused to allow key PTI leaders including Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and veteran politician Makhdoom Javed Hashmi to meet PTI founder Imran Khan, who is detained at the prison facility. Talking to the media later, Gandapur expressed his anger at the "unjustified restrictions" imposed on the executive head of a province and vowed to pay the PML-N led federal government in the same coin. Hashmi, who also remained a part of the PTI from 2012 to 2014, also condemned the move. The K-P chief minister stated that they had to meet the former prime minister in order to brief him on the K-P budget but the authorities did not allow this to happen. "The K-P budget approval process has not yet been completed and the budget session is ongoing," he added. Cracks in the former ruling party became more pronounced after the K-P Assembly on Tuesday approved the provincial budget. Some PTI leaders expressed amazement at the provincial government's "haste" with Imran's sisters claiming that the PTI founder was not consulted ahead of the approval. Gandapur said he could respond to refusal by authorities to let them meet their incarcerated leader by imposing restrictions on Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif during his visit to the K-P. The PTI has been in power in the K-P since 2013. He said Imran, the PTI patron-in-chief, was to give his input before the budget was passed but he, the K-P chief minister, was prevented from meeting him. He said law or the Constitution are being violated; institutions are not functioning and even the judiciary is not independent. "We were told by jail authorities that we could not meet Imran as a precautionary measure, as if we are terrorists. A meeting with the party founder will eventually happen, but the current method is wrong," he said. He said the party has filed a civil miscellaneous application (CMA) in the Supreme Court as well and asked as to what action has been taken on the letters that Imran Khan wrote to the chief justice of Pakistan, Gandapur also asked Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz as to how much authority does the Punjab Home Department actually have in allowing and disallowing a meeting between Imran Khan and his party leaders. He said as a chief minister, it is his right to visit any jail and meet with any prisoner. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi also spoke on the occasion, stating that no one could implement "the minus-Imran formula". He said he had come to Adiala Jail to express solidarity with the PTI founder. Hashmi said he had distanced himself from Imran when he had got closer to the establishment. "Imran does not want freedom, he only demands rule of law," he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store