ECP tells SC PTI was never party to reserved seats case

Express Tribune

3 days ago

Listen to article
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, stating that the PTI was never a party to the case before the SC.
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 Sunni Ittehad Council (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.
On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court, through a majority of 8 to 5, resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers.
The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination paper submission could do so now within a period of 15 days. The government later filed review petitions against the ruling, and now a CB is hearing the case.
In its reply, the ECP said the majority of judges who endorsed the July 12 order did not take note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18.
'Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the full 13-member bench. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution.'
The ECP stated that the majority judgment incorrectly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. It contended that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor did it seek them on any forum.
It said through the July 12 decision, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. It said the list for reserved seats is submitted before polling in accordance with the election schedule. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list for reserved seats after the elections, which is contrary to the law.
Additionally, it said 39 members were declared as PTI members contrary to the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction, and the ECP was not heard when Section 94 of the Election Act was invalidated.
Meanwhile, the PPP has also submitted additional statements to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court's July 12 decision went beyond the petition and the relief sought.
The real issue was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The matter of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never under consideration. This same question — whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats — was posed before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, and the SC, it said.
The party contended that the SC issued a decision on reserved seats that was unrelated to the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, it added.