SC reviews landmark verdict amid absences, silence and restraint
The highest court in the land on Monday waded into uncharted waters as it began hearing review petitions against its July 12 judgement - a verdict that had handed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures - but without six of the original judges, including the judgement's author.
The hearing broke new ground in more ways than one, marking several firsts in judicial history.
The review petitions, filed by the ruling PML-N and PPP alongside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), are being heard by a 13-member larger bench.
Curiously, the majority of the new Supreme Court bench were not part of the original decision, and no explanation has been offered as to why the court's constitutional committee did not recommend including the six judges from the earlier ruling.
For the first time since the 26th Constitutional Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court proceedings were broadcast live, a move hailed as a step toward transparency, though the absence of key judges cast a long shadow.
Despite the high stakes, not a single judge offered observations in favour of the majority judgement under review. Even Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi - both signatories to the original ruling - remained unusually tight-lipped, adopting a tone of marked restraint.
In contrast, two judges who had not been part of the original bench raised a fundamental question: if the PTI was not a party in the initial case, how could it receive relief?
They wondered as to how reserved seats were given to PTI when they were not a party, neither before the ECP nor the Peshawar High Court (PHC).
Justice Aminuddin Khan observed that it was an admitted fact that all PTI-backed returned candidates had joined the Sunni Ittehad Council, which had not contested the general elections.
He pressed further, asking whether any PTI-backed returned candidate had approached any forum to declare himself as a PTI candidate.
'Should the SC shut its eyes?'
The elephant in the courtroom, however, remained the role of the ECP during the controversial February 2024 polls, with most judges sidestepping the discussion on it. Though the majority judgment had held the ECP to account, only Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail pointed to the electoral body's failings.
Justice Mandokhail - part of the minority who believed PTI was entitled to reserved seats - said that the presiding officers and returning officers failed to perform their duties in accordance with the law and constitution during the February 2024 general election.
He challenged the opposing counsel, Makhdoom Ali Khan, by asking: "Should the Supreme Court shut its eyes?"
Commenting on the matter, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii flagged what he saw as a glaring lapse in judicial due diligence.
"What I found most amazing was how some of the judges who were not part of the original proceedings had clearly not read the judgment under review. You are seated to determine an error floating on the face of the record."
"You are extraordinarily doing so without the author judge and many other judges senior to you who were part of the original proceedings. Surely you can read the judgment for yourself and not rely on the arguments of counsel to refresh the most basic principles of the case for you," he added.
Observers also noted that the government's side appeared in a rush to tie up loose ends. Counsels for the PML-N, PPP and ECP all fell in line behind the arguments presented by Makhdoom Ali Khan, despite the original verdict's criticism of the ECP's conduct.
Insiders suggest that Justice Aminuddin Khan's upcoming Hajj might be behind this urgency. There is speculation that the ruling coalition is keen to see the matter settled before his departure.
On the other side of the aisle, PTI and its allied Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) have engaged four senior counsels to defend the majority ruling. SIC's Faisal Siddiqi is slated to present his arguments today (Tuesday).
Legal circles believe that the current impasse stems from the ECP's misreading of the Supreme Court's January 13 verdict, which declared PTI's intra-party polls illegal.
Besides, the court under former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa also came under fire for dragging its feet on PTI's review petition – a delay that many say left the political field clouded in uncertainty.
Even the majority judgment had flagged constitutional tensions at the heart of the matter.
The majority verdict had quested how the matter of intra party elections - a matter of internal governance of a party - could trump the fundamental rights of citizens to vote and of political parties to effectively participate in and contest elections by obtaining a common symbol for their candidates, guaranteed under Articles 17(2) and 19 of the Constitution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that the Commissioner Inland Revenue has jurisdiction under Section 221(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The 24-page judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, set aside the impugned judgments of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Islamabad High Court (IHC). It held; 'the tax references out of which these matters arise shall be deemed pending in the respective High Courts and the questions of law raised therein decided in accordance with law and consistently with this judgment.' Section 122 (5A) ITO: Power granted to IR commissioners is not without boundaries: ATIR 'CPLA 431-L/2023 involves questions of law other than the one decided by this judgment. This leave petition is returned to the office to be fixed in the ordinary course before an appropriate Bench,' it also said. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed heard the department (FBR) petitions against the LHC and IHC decisions. Babar Bilal appeared in CPLA Nos.4583 to 4585/2023. The judgment noted that the matters relating to the deemed assessment order (and indeed, the deemed amended assessment order) fall only and always within the first part (of Mehreen Zaibun Nisa), with all ensuing 'inevitable corollaries' applying accordingly. One of these is that the deemed orders of both kinds must be regarded as orders 'passed' by the Commissioner within the meaning, and for the purposes of, Section 221(1). 'The Commissioner therefore has the jurisdiction to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record'. The judgment decided the question; 'Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance to amend, in exercise of the power thereby conferred and, in the manner, and to the extent therein stated, what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. 120 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record?', in favour of the Commissioner and against the taxpayers. The High Courts had answered the question in the negative. The Department urged that both the courts erred materially in this regard. The taxpayers pray that the impugned judgments be upheld as having reached the correct conclusion in law. The judgment confirmed that the error made by the High Courts was to conflate the two deeming provisions into one. It was on account of this mistake that both judgments, whose reasoning run in parallel, concluded that there was no application of mind by the Commissioner and that the mistake always lay where, and by whom, in fact made, i.e., the taxpayer. However, once this unfortunate fusing is unpacked, and what the subsection actually does and require is realized, the mistake becomes apparent. Had the subsection only contained the deeming required by clause (b), then there could be merit to what the learned High Courts concluded. In such a situation, the only 'state of affairs' required to be imagined would be the deemed issuance of an assessment order. It could perhaps then be said that the deeming did not reach or touch any mistake to be found as a matter of fact in the return, and hence the deemed assessment order did not deal with any such thing. In this situation the attribution of the mistake, being outside the scope (or beyond the limit) of the legal fiction could be said to lie where, and by whom, actually made as a matter of fact. But that of course is not the case. There is also the (precedent) deeming required by clause (a). Once that is kept in mind then the inevitable conclusion is that there was, as a matter of law, a (deemed) application of mind by the Commissioner. Since it operated (as it could only) on the return, an inevitable corollary is that it is the whole of it, mistakes and all, that is the assessment (deemed) to have been made. And it is the (deemed) assessment so made that then results in the (deemed) issuance of the assessment order. In our view, it is only in terms of this bifurcation that subsection (1) can be properly understood and applied. A rolling up of the two clauses into one, with respect, led to the error into which both the learned High Courts fell. Thus, in the principal LHC judgment much emphasis was placed on s. 221(1) requiring that the order be 'passed' by the Commissioner. The matters before the Supreme Court arose under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in relation to the jurisdiction, under subsection (1) of Section 221, of the Commissioner to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and thereby amend what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. Most of these matters come from the Lahore High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 27.04.2022. That decision disposed of eight tax references that had been filed by the Commissioner and was followed in all the other matters in the said High Court by various orders of different dates. Islamabad High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 20.09.2023 which disposed of tax references filed by the Department. Both High Courts reached the same conclusion on the question now before the Court and therefore, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by this judgment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Two Indian-sponsored terrorists killed in Balochistan IBO: ISPR
Listen to article Security forces targeted a group of terrorists during an intelligence-based operation in Kolpur, Kachhi District, Balochistan, the military's media wing reported on Friday. The operation, launched based on reports of the presence of terrorists affiliated with the Indian-backed proxy group Fitna al Hindustan, was confirmed by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR). The security forces swiftly engaged the terrorists' location, resulting in a fierce exchange of fire. The operation led to the neutralisation of two terrorists, who were confirmed to be sponsored by India, ISPR said. In addition to eliminating the terrorists, security forces recovered a significant cache of weapons and ammunition. These individuals were actively involved in multiple terrorist activities orchestrated by India in the region, the statement added. The operation continues with ongoing sanitisation efforts to eliminate any remaining threats in the area. The ISPR reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to eliminating Indian-sponsored terrorism and bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Israeli military strikes Beirut's southern suburbs
BEIRUT: Israeli air strikes pummelled the southern suburbs of Lebanon's capital late on Thursday, sending thousands of people fleeing on the eve of a Muslim feast day and prompting accusations by top Lebanese officials that Israel was violating a ceasefire deal. At least 10 strikes hit Beirut's southern suburbs - a sprawling area known as Dahiyeh - in a wave of bombing that began about 90 minutes after the Israeli military issued evacuation warnings for four sites in the area. It was the fourth time that Dahiyeh has been bombed since a U.S.-brokered truce in November ended a year-long war between Israel and Iran-backed Lebanese armed movement Hezbollah. The ceasefire says Hezbollah must pull all military equipment and fighters out of southern Lebanon and says all non-state fighter groups must be disarmed across the country. The Israeli military said on Thursday that it was planning to strike 'underground UAV production infrastructure sites that were deliberately established in the heart of civilian population' in Dahiyeh. It said Hezbollah was producing thousands of drones there, 'with the direction and funding of Iranian terrorists.' There was no immediate comment from Hezbollah, which in the past has denied placing military infrastructure in civilian areas. A Lebanese security source told Reuters that Lebanon's army had received a notice earlier on Thursday that military equipment was being stored in one area in Dahiyeh. After visiting the site, the army determined there was no such military equipment stored there. 'Then, the Israeli military put out their warning. The army tried to enter Dahiyeh again to search again and prevent the strikes, but Israeli warning strikes blocked the troops from entering the area,' the source said. The strikes sent thick plumes of smoke billowing over the district until midnight, according to Reuters footage. Thousands fled, causing traffic gridlock. Most ended up fleeing on foot to relatives' homes, and others stayed out in the streets. Israeli strikes also hit the southern Lebanese village of Ain Qana, according to Lebanese state media, shortly after evacuation warnings were issued for the area. The attacks occurred as the Muslim holiday Eid Al-Adha was due to begin on Thursday. The strikes 'generated renewed panic and fear on the eve of Eid Al-Adha,' the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon said on X. Israel strikes south Beirut, prompting Lebanese appeal to ceasefire guarantors Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam both condemned the attacks as a 'blatant violation' of international agreements. Hezbollah and Israel accuse each other of not fulfilling the terms of the truce, which has looked shaky in recent months. Israel's military has continually targeted southern Lebanon and Israeli troops still occupy five hilltop positions in the south. Israel has struck Beirut's suburbs three times since the truce was agreed, mostly in response to rocket launches from Lebanon. Hezbollah denied involvement in those launches. The latest war between longtime foes Israel and Hezbollah began in October 2023, when Hezbollah launched rockets at Israeli military positions in solidarity with its Palestinian ally Hamas. Israel escalated the following year in a heavy bombing campaign that killed thousands of Hezbollah fighters, destroying much of its arsenal and eliminating its top leadership, including its then-secretary general Hassan Nasrallah.
