Latest news with #AyeshaAMalik
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Reserved seats
Listen to article The much-awaited decision on reserved seats has cleared the air and now PTI is neither a parliamentary party nor is it eligible for the seats reserved for women and minorities in national and provincial assemblies. The judgment delivered on Friday by the Constitutional Bench under Justice Aminuddin Khan has set aside the July 12, 2024, eight-member majority decision of the Supreme Court, which had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats. In fact, the Constitutional bench has restored the Peshawar High Court's original order that had outright dismissed the PTI's plea for reserved seats after it had changed its nomenclature to Sunni Ittehad Council on the floor of the house. Since the Sunni Ittehad had not taken part in the February 2024 general elections, the PTI taking refuge under its banner was infructuous, and goes on to endorse the claim held by the Election Commission. This was fait accompli for PTI, as its logic and argument on the reserved seats was found untenable, in the review petition, even by the honourable judges who had earlier voiced for it. The strength of the decision can be gauged from the fact that seven judges put their weight behind review pleas filed by ECP, PML-N and others, while three judges 'partially allowed' them'. The proceedings, likewise, saw a fair lawsuit as dissenting notes too were entertained as those of Justices Ayesha A Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, and the last to the recuse was Justice Salahuddin Panhwar. The 12-judge judgment now makes it obvious that those who had earlier joined the Sunni Ittehad could face the defection clause under Article 63A of the Constitution, if they chose to rejoin PTI after this judgment. In principle, the PTI has had a fair hearing and now as per law, the reserved seats under Article 51 and Article 106 and the Elections Act will go to the coalition because the 77 seats cannot be kept vacant. With nine judges having corrected the error in the review petitions, it's time to walk straight and let the Constitution have its way.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC declares PTI ineligible for reserved seats
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court with the majority of seven set aside the impugned judgment dated 12th July 2024, on the reserved seats of women and non-Muslims. The 10-member bench on Friday after hearing the arguments of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel, Attorney General for Pakistan, and the lawyer of women parliamentarians, elected on the tickets of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) on reserved seats, passed a short order, the detailed reasoning would be announced later. Initially, a 13-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat 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, was constituted for the hearing of review petitions. On the first hearing, held on May 6, 2025, 11 judges of 13-member bench accepting the review petitions issued notices to the respondents. However, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi rejected the petitions, and wrote separate note, while Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, at the verge of conclusion recused from the bench for certain reasons. According to the short order, majority of seven judges – Justice Amin, Justice Musarrat, Justice Naeem, Justice Shahid, Justice Hashim, Justice Aamer and Justice Baqar Najafi – allowed all Civil Review Petitions, and set aside the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024, as a consequence thereof, Civil Appeal Nos 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored. The order further stated that Justice Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats, but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of 41 seats. Whereas Justice Muhammad and Justice Azhar also reviewed the judgment and allowed the review petitions with the rider that since the factual controversy or disputed questions of facts neither could be resolved by the Peshawar High Court nor this Court in original or review jurisdiction; therefore, directions are issued to the ECP to examine and consider the nomination papers/ declaration and other relevant documents of all 80 returned candidates by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats within 15 days from receiving the copy of this Short Order. A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24, delivered five separate short orders. Eight judges – Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan declared that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, and to 41 independents granted 15 days' time to decide on joining the PTI. Former Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Mandokhel in their order also accepted 39 candidates of the PTI, but considered 41 as independents. Justice Yahya Afridi though recognized PTI as political party, had directed the ECP to decide the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to political parties in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies. On the other hand, Justice Amin, and Justice Naeem had rejected the SIC appeal against the PHC verdict. Onset of the proceedings, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar addressing Hamid Khan, lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council, said that he had good relation with him. 'However, you raised objections on the bench yesterday (Thursday).' He then read his written statement, which stated; 'In the entire proceeding of this case all the counsels including Faial Siddiqui, Salman Akram Raja unequivocally expressed confidence in the bench. However, yesterday Hamid Khan during the course of his arguments raised objections on the bench, especially targeting the inclusion of the judges, including me, who were appointed judges of the apex court subsequent to the 26th Amendment, questioned the propriety of our participation in the adjudication of this case.' He stated: 'Dignity and impartiality of the Court remained unchallenged throughout these proceedings, and there was broad consensus among all the parties, thus reflected faith in the bench. Judicial propriety and the appearance of impartiality remain paramount in maintaining the public confidence in the judiciary. 'In light of the objection raised and in deference to the principle of judicial propriety, irrespective of its merit, and the timing of the assertion I consider it appropriate to rescue myself from the hearing of this case. The recusal is made not from the admission or disqualification, but to uphold the dignity of the institution and integrity and objectivity of these proceedings, I thereby recused myself from the bench.' When Justice Salahuddin Panhwar finished his statement, Hamid Khan said: 'Greatly appreciated.' However, Justice Amin responded; 'This is not the matter of appreciation', adding: 'this is because of your conduct.' While addressing Hamid Khan, the judge further said that you are the third counsel of the same party, whom we gave an opportunity to argue in this case. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said; 'In a case two counsels from the same party are never allowed, but we respected you as a senior counsel; therefore, provided you opportunity to argue the case; otherwise you were not entitled,' adding; 'You have misused it.' After the recusal of Justice Salahuddin the members of the bench left the courtroom, and approximately 30 minutes later the 10-judge bench resumed the hearing. Hamid Khan emphasized that the review petitions should be heard by the same numerical strength bench that had delivered the judgment. He then referred the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a reference was filed against him in the Supreme Judicial Council. He submitted that a 10-member bench was hearing the review against the SC judgment by the 10 judges. However, in the middle of the hearings Justice Faisal Arab retired the then chief justice; therefore, included another judge (Justice Amin) in the bench hearing the review petitions of Justice Faez. Hamid then contended that under Article 191A of the constitution the constitutional benches are constituted by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which is dominated by the executive members. Justice Mandokhail told that this arrangement was due to 26th Amendment. He then asked from the SIC council do you accept the 26th Amendment? Then he told him to move on his next point. Hamid reacted; 'Do you stop me from arguing my case'. Justice Mandokhail told him that 'you have 10 minutes to make your argument; otherwise, sit down.' Hamid replied: 'You are angry, do not hear the case just now.' The conversation continued in a confrontational manner, with Justice Mandokhail telling him to sit down if he does not want to present his arguments. 'I know how to do my job, you should be careful with your words,' Justice Mandokhail said. 'I have skipped my mother's funeral to be here and you are joking.' He said the bench would not hear anything irrelevant and had already heard enough. 'We consider you a good lawyer, but what you are doing right now is not the job of a professional lawyer,' he added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
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
