Top court resumes hearing on petition from SIC, supported by PTI-backed candidates
The Supreme Court resumed on Monday hearing on a petition from the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), supported by PTI-backed candidates, challenging the denial of reserved seats in assemblies for women and minorities.
The full court of 13 judges, including Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, convened for the live-streamed proceedings on the SC’s website and YouTube channel.
Following the February 8 elections, where PTI-backed independent candidates joined SIC after the PTI lost its electoral symbol ‘bat’ due to a Supreme Court ruling.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in a 4-1 verdict ruled in March that SIC could not claim reserved seats due to significant legal flaws and failure to submit a mandatory party list for such seats.
Consequently, the ECP redistributed these seats among other parliamentary parties, benefiting primarily PML-N and PPP with 16 and five additional seats respectively, while JUI-F received four seats. PTI rejected this verdict as unconstitutional.
In the same month, the Peshawar High Court dismissed an SIC plea challenging the ECP’s decision to deny them reserved seats.
On May 6, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court suspended the PHC verdict regarding the distribution of reserved seats beyond the originally allocated ones to political parties.
In line with the Supreme Court’s directive, the ECP subsequently suspended the victory notifications of 77 lawmakers, resulting in the ruling coalition losing its two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
At the end of May, a full court was convened to hear the case, with all judges present except Justice Musarrat Hilali.
During the June 3 hearing, Justice Mandokhail noted that the public had voted for PTI-nominated candidates rather than independents in the February 8 elections.
Justice Shah proposed that the controversy could be resolved if the ECP allowed former independent candidates three more days to decide whether to join another political party.
In subsequent hearings, the judges scrutinized the ECP’s decisions and the January 13 Supreme Court verdict that deprived PTI of its ‘bat’ symbol.
Chief Justice Isa defended the January 13 verdict despite criticism from Justice Akhtar, who argued that the PTI lost its symbol due to a chain of errors triggered by the Supreme Court judgment.
The lawyers representing SIC and beneficiary parties like PPP and PML-N were granted two full days to conclude their arguments starting from the current hearing.
On Saturday, the ECP justified its decision to deny reserved seats to SIC for women and non-Muslims through a statement submitted by Senior Counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand to the Supreme Court.
The ECP argued that SIC did not qualify for reserved seats as it did not meet the constitutional criteria of being a political party under Articles 51(6)(d), 56(6)(e), and 106(3)(c) of the Constitution.
Additionally, SIC failed to submit a timely priority list (Form 66) for reserved seats as required by the election program.
The ECP also pointed out that Article 3 of SIC’s constitution restricted party membership to adult Muslims only, which contradicted constitutional provisions on freedom of association, freedom to profess religion, and equality of citizens (Articles 17, 20, and 25).
Todays hearing
PTI-SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui appeared before the court and began presenting arguments on behalf of SIC.
Siddiqui emphasized that the court should interpret the constitution progressively, “Justice Mandukhel has given a similar interpretation in his recent judgment,” he added.
Justice Aminuddin Khan sought clarification on the procedure for a member to join political parties.
CJP Isa also questioned whether we should disregard the natural meaning of the Constitution, and if so, why.
Faisal Siddiqui remarked, “The core issue revolves around the purpose of constitutional provisions.”
Justice Mandukhel questioned why special seats should be allocated to those who did not participate in the elections.
Justice Saadat argued that adhering strictly to constitutional wording risks rendering its intent ineffective adding SIC has been declared as not being a political party.
Justice Minallah commented that once a political party loses its election symbol, it ceases to be a political party.
He further pointed out that PTI was an unlisted political party and that ECP had categorized it as an unlisted political entity.
The chief justice again questioned why PTI members would join another party if PTI is still considered a political party.
“If this argument is accepted as true, then why did you commit suicide by joining another party,” CJP Isa remarked.
He added that the stance contradicts the party’s own arguments.
Counsel Siddiqui informed the court that revision over PTI intra-party elections was pending.
