Reserved seats: Counsel for SIC seeks time to file application
ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) counsel sought time to file an application to challenge the constitution of the bench, hearing the review petitions on reserved seats.
A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, on Tuesday, heard the review petition of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
At the outset of the proceeding, Faisal Siddiqui, representing the SIC, came on the rostrum and requested the bench adjourned the hearing until next Monday (May 19) so that he can file a formal application challenging the formation of the bench.
Faisal informed that on first hearing, he did not receive the notice, while on the second hearing could not come because of suspension of flights due to Pakistan-India conflict.
The SIC counsel contended that as the flights have resumed operation; therefore, on the third hearing (May13) of the review petitions, he is before the bench but has not prepared the application yet; therefore, needed some time.
The bench accepting Faisal's plea adjourned the case until May 19.
The PML-N through advocate Haris Azmat on Tuesday filed the additional grounds, submitting that the detailed reasoning (of majority judges), unfortunately, ignored the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, hence, this makes it an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The constitution in Article 51 (6) (d) grants three days to an independent candidate to join any party after the issuance of notification as a returned candidate, contrary to that the majority judges provided 15 days for joining any party. The courts have no power to rewrite the constitution, the lawyer contended.
He mentioned that Justice Yahya Afridi in his separate note stated; 'The undeniable power of this Court to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution is recognized, exercising this power in the absence of an aggrieved party directly approaching the Court could set a dangerous and far-reaching precedent. Such a course risks undermining the principles of due process and judicial restraint, potentially leading to an overreach of judicial authority.'
Similarly, Justice Aminuddin Khan in his note held; 'We are sitting in a jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution and can exercise jurisdiction under Article 175 of the Constitution, but cannot exercise any other jurisdiction as this is not conferred upon this Court, therefore, it cannot be exercised.'
The petitioner contended that the entire case in the detailed reasoning of the majority judges is built on the fact that even though Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has not been formally impleaded and is not a party before the Court, even then it can be granted relief under Article 187 of the Constitution. The same reasoning with respect is absolutely incorrect and hence, the detailed reasoning and the Order under Review is liable to be recalled. It is error apparent on the face of the record.
The petition through Haris Azmat said the Order under Review is liable to be recalled and the Detailed Reasoning has no merit as the same is against the settled principles of law. It is now well-settled that no findings by a Court can be given in a list which is beyond the pleadings or the case set up by the parties in the Appeal or forums below.
It submitted that the PTI never challenged the actions of the RO's or the Commission before this Court.
Even in the impleadment application, no such orders were appended therewith.
In view of the same, the findings recorded therein are liable to be recalled.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Only 14% MNAs attend all sittings of 16th NA session
Two supplementary resolutions were adopted by the house which were about paying tributes to the sacrifices of the armed forces on Defence Day and condemning terrorism in Quetta and Mardan. PHOTO: FAFEN The 16th session of the National Assembly that spanned over 13 sittings between May 5 and 22, 2025, saw only 14% members making 100% attendance, while 9% of the members were absent during the entire session, the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) said in its report on Thursday. Fafen is a civil society network focused on strengthening democracy. It said in its latest report that consistent with the previous sessions, female attendance was generally higher than that of their male counterparts during the session last month. "The highest attendance was recorded during the first sitting, with 237 members (76%) present. During this sitting, the House suspended its regular agenda to discuss the recent Pakistan-India conflict," the report said. The lowest attendance was recorded during the last sitting, with 174 members (55%) present. This sitting was initially adjourned after just 13 minutes because of the lack of quorum. The House reconvened after 15 minutes and passed The Off the Grid (Captive Power Plants) Levy Bill, 2025. Fafen said that 150 members of the National Assembly (MNAs) skipped sittings without advance leave request; 118 (44%) submitted a leave application, including 25 (21%) in advance and 37 (31%) applied ex-post facto after returning from their leave. It added that 268 members (86%) missed at least one sitting during the current session. The report said that 16 female MNAs, including 14 on reserved seats, attended all the sittings, while five female MNAs, including two on the reserved seats, recorded zero attendance. Region-wise, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Islamabad Capital Territory lawmakers recorded the highest percentage of MNAs attending more than half of the sittings, it said, adding that majority of lawmakers from the SIC, the PML-N, the JUI, and independents attended more than half of the sittings. A lack of ministerial presence weakened legislative oversight, Fafen said in the report. Among the 29 federal ministers, who were expected to be present during the Question Hour to respond to queries from lawmakers, only 15 (52%) were marked present during the sittings.
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
India's hegemonic designs
One reality which emerged out of the recent India-Pakistan conflict is that India is one among equal in the fraternity of South Asian nations. India has long positioned itself as the dominant regional power in South Asia, leveraging its demographic, economic, and military superiority. However, the recent conflict between India and Pakistan has exposed critical vulnerabilities in this hegemonic posture. This article examines the implications of the conflict on India's regional dominance, highlighting the growing parity between India and Pakistan in diplomatic and military affairs and the increasing strategic autonomy of smaller South Asian nations. It argues that the traditional notion of Indian hegemony is being challenged by an emerging more multipolar and assertive regional order India's involvement in regional organizations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) also illustrates its ambitions to play a leadership role in South Asia. Yet, this perceived hegemony has often been met with resistance from neighboring countries. Indian leadership's role in South Asia has been underpinned by a combination of soft power, economic leverage and strategic dominance. New Delhi has frequently acted as a security guarantor, development partner, and political influencer in countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. However, these relationships have often been marked by tensions, with smaller states resisting perceived Indian overreach. Pakistan, influenced by historic parity between the two carved out countries, remained out of the orbit of India's hegemony. Countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka have increasingly asserted their sovereignty and economic independence. Bangladesh has pursued extensive economic partnerships with China and Japan and lately with Pakistan, while Nepal has defied Indian pressure on constitutional and territorial matters. Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives have oscillated between pro-India and pro-China alignments, reflecting a desire for strategic balance rather than dependence. Nevertheless, this hegemonic stance has increasingly come under scrutiny, particularly in the wake of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, which has revealed significant constraints on India's ability to unilaterally influence regional and global outcomes. India's relative military and economic superiority did not translate into strategic dominance in this conflict. The parity in tactical outcomes has dented the myth of India's invincibility in conventional military terms. Pakistan's nuclear deterrence, improved air defence, and effective diplomacy neutralized India's attempts to impose strategic costs, creating a deterrent equilibrium. The conflict illustrated that conventional superiority does not guarantee dominance in modern asymmetric and nuclear-influenced warfare. The rapid military responses on both sides underscored the limits of escalation without mutual destruction. The conflict has affirmed Pakistan's continued relevance in global diplomacy. Despite India's growing alignment with the West, especially the US, , France and Russia, these powers refrained from taking a partisan stance. Instead, international diplomacy focused on de-escalation and parity-based dialogue. This reinforces the notion that, in matters of regional security and peace, India is not the sole interlocutor, and Pakistan remains a necessary counterpart. Diplomatically, both countries engaged with major global powers to narrate their versions of the conflict. Crucially, the international community treated both states as equally responsible actors, calling for restraint and dialogue. The ceasefire agreement, reportedly influenced by external mediation from actors like the US and the United Arab Emirates, further undermined India's insistence on bilateralism and highlighted its vulnerability to international pressure. Moreover, internationally, both India and Pakistan engaged in parallel diplomatic offensives, apprising the world capitals of their narratives. Significantly, none of these powers outrightly condemned either side. Instead, global calls for restraint and dialogue placed both nations on an equal diplomatic footing. India's inability to dictate the terms of the conflict's resolution represents a broader erosion of its regional and global influence. This shift is not only due to Pakistan's strategic resilience but also because of the changing dynamics among other South Asian nations, many of whom are actively diversifying their diplomatic and economic engagements. The cumulative effect of these developments is a region that is moving away from a unipolar Indian-led order toward a more multi-polar framework. South Asian states are no longer content with passive roles in a hierarchy led by India; instead, they are engaging in multilateral diplomacy, leveraging international partnerships, and resisting hegemonic pressures. The recent India-Pakistan conflict serves as a critical inflection point in South Asia's geopolitical trajectory. It challenges the long-standing assumption of Indian hegemony and underscores the emergence of a more balanced regional order. India's strategic and diplomatic parity with Pakistan in the conflict, coupled with the assertiveness of smaller neighboring states, signals the decline of unilateral Indian dominance. Moving forward, India's future role in South Asia will depend not on its ability to dominate, but on its willingness to engage as a partner among equals. In a region characterized by rising nationalism, economic competition, and strategic realignments, hegemonic posturing may prove not only unsustainable but counter-productive. The way forward lies in fostering regional integration, resolving bilateral issues through dialogue, and embracing a pluralistic vision of South Asian solidarity. India can play a significant role in making this happen. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Nawaz offers Eid prayers in London
LONDON: Former prime minister and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) President Nawaz Sharif prayed for the country's development after offering Eid prayers in London. 'May Allah put Pakistan on the path of progress,' said the three-time prime minister after offering Eid prayer. He added, 'May Allah bless the people of Pakistan with happiness. May Allah grant joy to all Muslims across the Islamic world.' The three-time prime minister also lauded China, Turkiye and Azerbaijan for supporting Pakistan during difficult times. 'It is the collective responsibility of international community to support Pakistan's legitimate issues and UN must take a leading role in resolving them,' said Nawaz Sharif.
