PTI reserved seats: SC issues notices to respondents
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, accepting the review petitions, issued notices to the respondents in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats in the National Assemblies and the provincial assemblies.
However, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi declined to issue notices and said they will write their notes and give reasons regarding the matter.
Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said the Court has issued notice even to the contemnor (ECP), which has not implemented the apex court's judgment.
The review petitions were filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan People's Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the apex court's verdict of July 12, 2024, which had declared the PTI eligible for the reserved seats. A 13-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat 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, on Tuesday, heard the review petition of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Peoples' Party and the ECP.
The notices were issued in the PTI contempt petition against the Chief Election Commissioner for not implementing the Supreme Court in reserved seats. The notice was also issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan under Rule XXVII of Supreme Court Rules.
Barrister Haris Azmat, appearing on behalf of PML-N, contended that in the short order and the detailed judgment of the majority judges reserved seats were given to the PTI despite the fact it was not before the apex court in appeal against the Peshawar High Court verdict. Sunni Ittehad Council, which had filed the appeal, came down to 'zero'. He argued that every party is bound by its pleading, adding a party, which did not agitate the issue of reserved seats before any forum was given all seats.
Justice Ayesha questioned how this ground could be taken up in review, adding scope of review is limited and it is not like appeal where new grounds could be argued. She told the counsel that the issues which he was arguing were heard at great length in appeal and were addressed in the majority judgment. 'You have to point out what illegality is in the judgment.'
Justice Jamal inquired from Haris if he succeeded in persuading the bench to issue notices to the respondents then what would be the fate of his judgment. Ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had issued their separate judgment in the reserved seats case, which recommended that the independent candidates who had contested elections on the PTI symbol would be PTI parliamentarians.
Justice Mazhar asked the PML-N lawyer that he has to show error floating on the surface of the judgment. Haris then mentioned that the PTI was not before the Court, adding that even one of the members of the bench was perplexed how the majority judgment gave seats to the PTI.
Justice Jamal stated that in his judgment they had recommended that the matter of reserved seats should be remanded to the ECP, with the direction to redistribute the seats in accordance with nomination papers submitted before the returning officer.
Justice Ayesha asked the counsel that the Commission was required to uphold the constitutional provisions. She stated that the issue of giving reserved seats to PTI was dealt with in the judgment. Whether it is right or wrong, but the ECP was supposed to implement the judgment.
Haris contended that the constitutional provision is very clear that within three days of notification the independent candidates have to join any party. However, the judgment instead of three days provided 15 days. Justice Hilali questioned whether any notice was issued to the PTI in appeal. She also inquired whether the PTI as a political party contested the general elections. The PML-N lawyer submitted that only one application was filed on behalf of a PTI woman, whose name was mentioned in the PTI reserved seats list.
Justice Ayesha asked the PML-N lawyer to inform whether the Commission was not bound by the constitution and if a body is not performing its duty then what could be its consequences. She further asked whether the Commission implemented the judgment or not, and how the PML-N is aggrieved by the majority verdict? How is the review petition maintainable without implementing the judgment?
Justice Rizvi pointed out that a contempt petition is pending against the ECP. Justice Mazhar questioned whether the parties have filed additional grounds for review in their petitions. When the ECP lawyer started arguments, Justice Ayesha inquired from him how the Commission can consider the party in the review. Sikandar Bashir, representing the ECP, contended that the Commission was before the Peshawar High Court, adding the apex court decided the appeal without issuing notice to the PTI.
Justice Ayesha said a number of directions were issued to the ECP, and asked whether the Commission implemented them. Justice Aqeel asked the counsel whether an adjudicating body could file a review petition without enforcing the apex court's judgment. Justice Hashim Kakar also questioned regarding implementation of judgment?
Sikandar responded that the judgment was partially implemented. Upon that, Justice Ayesha questioned how come the ECP can pick and choose, it complied only with those portions of the judgment, which it liked. Justice Aqeel remarked why not this Court first take up the contempt petition and hold the Commission libel for contempt for not implementing the SC judgment.
The counsel stated that they will implement the majority judgment to some extent. Upon that, Justice Jamal asked what he meant by saying to some extent, adding he was not interested in this case, but wanted that the Court judgment be implemented, adding; 'We respect the ECP and the same we expect from it.'
Justice Ayesha stated; 'We are not interested in entertaining the ECP petition, as it had not implemented the judgment.' 'I have read the points raised in your petition, and have given my mind. How you being a body to conduct elections could become a party in this dispute,' she told Sikandar.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC orders abolition of CDA
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday ordered the federal government to dissolve the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and transfer all its powers and assets to the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI). In a detailed verdict, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani ruled that the CDA has no legal authority to impose taxes. The court further declared that any amount collected by the Authority from individuals or institutions under the guise of "Right of Way" or direct access charges must be refunded. The federal government was instructed to initiate and complete the process of dissolving the CDA and transfer all its powers and assets to the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI). The judgment emphasised that the rights of Islamabad's citizens must be protected under the law. The ruling was issued in response to a petition filed by Taj Residencia Housing Society and its residents. The court also declared SRO dated June 9, 2015 — regarding CDA's right-of-way and access charges — null and void, along with all actions taken under it, labeling them as illegal. Any funds collected under this SRO must be returned. Justice Kayani noted that the CDA Ordinance was originally enacted to establish the federal capital and oversee its development, but due to evolving governance structures and new laws, its practical relevance has ended. The original objectives of the CDA have been fulfilled, and it is now appropriate for the government to formally dissolve the authority. The court also directed that following the transfer of powers, the Islamabad administration must operate in a transparent and accountable manner. The judgment reaffirmed that Islamabad's entire administrative, regulatory, and municipal framework is governed by the Local Government Act, which mandates that no tax could be imposed without the approval of the elected local government. Therefore, CDA lacks any legal authority to levy taxes. It is worth noting that CDA had imposed right-of-access charges on petrol pumps and CNG stations, and direct access taxes on private housing societies for connecting to main roads. These charges were challenged in the IHC, resulting in this significant decision. Rains prompt monsoon action On the other hand, the CDA has finalised a special action plan for the monsoon season and issued a notification outlining the responsibilities of all relevant departments to ensure effective implementation. On the instructions of CDA Chairman, Member Administration Talat Mehmood has been assigned to oversee the plan. According to the notification, special teams will be deployed following a survey of illegal basements and low-lying areas. Flood relief camps and other safety measures will be established to handle any emergency situations. A Flood Relief Cell will remain operational from July 1 to September 30, headed by the Director of Emergency and Disaster Management. A dedicated helpline will also be set up, and assistance will be available via rescue and fire brigade services. Heads of relevant departments will appoint focal persons at the relief camps. The sanitation department will operate under the authority of the relief camps. A special operation will be launched against makeshift houses and illegal constructions.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Punjab PTI MPAs face speaker's reference
Listen to article Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan has announced that a reference will be sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against 26 suspended PTI MPAs over their "disruptive, abusive and violative" conduct during a recent assembly session. The move follows the suspension issued on June 27 under Rule 210(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the provincial legislature of the Punjab, 1997, after the members disrupted Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz's address with slogans and ruckus in the House. Further escalating tensions, the speaker also ordered recovery of Rs2,035,000 in damages from 10 PTI MPAs - Rs203,550 each – for climbing desks and damaging eight microphones during their June 16 protest during the provincial budget presentation. In another incident, PTI MPA Hassan Malik (PP-81) was barred from attending the assembly until the current session is prorogued, following his act of hurling a copy of the budget speech at Finance Minister Mian Mujtaba Shuja Ur Rehman. On June 24, the speaker gave a ruling stressing the importance of maintaining parliamentary decorum: "I emphasise all members, regardless of their political affiliation, in order to preserve decorum, uphold the dignity of this august Assembly, and ensure that parliamentary proceedings can continue without disruption." "I shall take all the steps within the legal framework to maintain order and uphold dignity of this august House and its members," he further warned. The response came after Opposition Leader Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar raised a point of order, defending protest as a constitutional right. To determine the limits of that right, the speaker cited Rule 223 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, enacted under Article 67, read with Article 127 of the Constitution, which outlines members' conduct in the House. However, Bhachar strongly condemned the speaker's orders and vowed the opposition would continue its protest undeterred by threats of de-seating or financial penalties. "It was decided in our parliamentary meeting that opposition members will enter and leave the House silently," he said, noting that when he attempted to speak on a point of order, the speaker did not grant him the floor. PTI rejects 'fascist tactics' Meanwhile, senior PTI leaders blasted the ruling coalition and the judiciary, denouncing the "orchestrated campaign" to suppress the party and dismantle democracy. They firmly rejected the notion of a "Minus Imran" formula. In a joint press conference with suspended Punjab Assembly members, PTI legal counsel Salman Akram Raja, Opposition Leader Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar, and senior lawyer Sardar Latif Khosa condemned the systematic persecution of their party. "There is no Minus-Imran plan. The party hasn't even considered such a thing," Salman Akram Raja said. "For 78 years, we've been fed the illusion of democracy, when in reality, we've only seen authoritarian rule," he added, accusing the state of continuously installing "political proxies". Raja noted that PTI had engaged even with those "propped up on crutches", only to meet inertia. "Every time we met them, they said: 'We'll ask and let you know.' Even when we requested a meeting with our party founder, they again said they had to seek permission. They admitted they had no authority. So, what are we to negotiate with such powerlessness?" Regarding the Swat tragedy, where 16 tourists lost their lives in a flash flood, Raja acknowledged the limits of governance in natural calamities, adding, "If a family on a picnic is struck by an act of God, what can any government do? The K-P government isn't Superman." Opposition Leader Bhachar reiterated claims of institutional overreach. "We're resisting fascism in the Punjab Assembly," he said. "Last night, they launched a surprise assault and suspended 26 of our members." Bhachar maintained that PTI lawmakers had exercised their constitutional right to protest. "Not only were we suspended, but they also fined us. And now they're preparing to file references in the Election Commission," he said, pointing out double standards in the chamber. "The deputy speaker was raising slogans from the chair... has any action been taken against him?" He added that he had tried three times to take the floor but was not allowed to speak. "It is a principle that the opposition leader must be given the floor when he rises," Bhachar said, noting that legal consultation on the fines is underway. Sardar Latif Khosa, meanwhile, took aim at the judiciary. "Justice Qazi Faez Isa's decisions are equivalent to murdering democracy," he said. "The nation is holding him accountable — and will continue to do so." He also questioned the legitimacy of the chief election commissioner's continued service. "He's retired, yet still sitting due to the 26th constitutional amendment," Khosa said, adding that the notion of military courts for civilians was incompatible with democracy. Calling the SC's reserved seats case decision "the darkest in its history", Khosa said, "We had a two-thirds majority, yet we are to receive zero Senate seats? There cannot be a more disgraceful or repugnant decision than this." "These decisions will cost the nation for centuries," he warned, pledging never to surrender. "We are fighting for the rights of the people of Pakistan." Salman Akram Raja said PTI's commitment remained undeterred. "Yesterday's decision has not weakened our commitment. We will restore the rights of the people," he declared. "This case isn't about PTI or the Sunni Ittehad Council alone — it belongs to every citizen." "We reject this verdict, and will continue to do so," he asserted. He accused the state of sidelining PTI from the February 8 general elections. "First, our electoral symbol was snatched. Then, our reserved seats were looted in the dark of night." "In Pakistan's entire legal history, there are only two rulings that went against tyranny. This was not one of them," he added. "Our opposition seats were distributed like spoils of war to other parties. The Constitution demands that reserved seats be proportionally allocated to parties winning general seats." "In this country, democracy has been treated like forbidden fruit," Raja said. "There's no doubt that PTI is the largest political force. Yesterday was just another failed attempt to silence that voice."
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Election Commission faces troll post-reserved seats verdict
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Saturday rejected what it called "baseless propaganda" being circulated in certain media circles following the Supreme Court's constitutional bench's decision on reserved seats. The criticism arose after the Supreme Court's constitutional bench dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats. The decision allowed the ruling coalition, led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), to emerge as the single largest party and to consolidate a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Amid shifting political dynamics, the ECP reiterated its constitutional role and defended the legality of its decisions, saying the claims were contrary to facts and intended to mislead the public. In a statement, a spokesperson for the ECP said that some circles in the media were engaged in baseless propaganda against the Commission following the recent decision of the top court. The spokesperson said that the Commission declares this propaganda to be contrary to facts and based on falsehoods. The statement said that such elements were unjustifiably targeting the commission with criticism. It added that historical facts and numerous decisions of the superior judiciary provide irrefutable evidence that the Commission has always performed its duties in light of the Constitution and law. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the position of the Election Commission," it read. For example, in the Senate elections, the spokesperson said, the commission's stance regarding secret ballot and show of hands procedures, which was fully in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, was upheld by a Supreme Court bench headed by the then ex-CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed. In the case of the disqualification election in Daska, the official added, the Commission's decision was not only declared valid by the Supreme Court bench, led by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial but also recognized as a constitutional action. The Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had also endorsed the legal interpretation of the Commission concerning PTI's intra-party elections, the statement maintained. Furthermore, it said, in the case of the delisting of the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), when the Commission delisted APML for failing to conduct intra-party elections, and this decision was challenged by APML in the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the Commission's decision. Following this, the spokesperson said, the Commission delisted several other parties that failed to comply with the law, keeping the Supreme Court's decision in mind. The Supreme Court also accepted the Commission's appeal regarding Punjab Election Tribunals, rejecting the Lahore High Court's decision and upholding the Commission's stance. Similarly, it was maintained, in the recent case concerning reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council, first the Peshawar High Court and now the SC constitutional bench have upheld the Commission's position as constitutional and legal.
