ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday admitted for regular hearing, review petitions against its judgement that had held that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) was entitled to get reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and provincial assemblies.
A 13-member Constitutional Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against the July 12, 2024 verdict in reserved seats case.
Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan. During the preliminary proceedings after hearing the counsels for ECP and PMLN, the bench admitted the review petitions for regular hearing and issued notices to the respondents for today (Wednesday). Two judges -- Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Ayesha A Malik -- declared the review petitions as non-maintainable and dismissed it. Both judges held that they didn’t want to issue notices and would give their separate reasons for that.
The 11-members of the bench then issued notices to the respondents in the review petitions as well the ECP in a contempt petition filed by the PTI against Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja and others for not implementing the July 12, 2024, judgement.
The court directed the ECP to submit reply in the contempt petition and adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday).
Justice Aminuddin, while noting down the order of Tuesday’s proceeding, noted that the court heard Haris Amjid, counsel for the PMLN, who pointed out the errors in the July 12 judgement and stated that the PTI was not before the court but Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC); however, the apex court granted relief to the PTI.
Similarly, the court noted down in its order that Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, learned counsel for Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), referred to Para 19.3 of the majority judgment as well as Para 117 of the judgment and contended that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) never sought relief from the court but the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).
The 11 judges then, by majority, issued notices to the respondents including Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and others for today (Wednesday) at 11:30 am.
The court held that the contempt of court petition would also be heard alongside the review petitions and issued notice to the ECP with the direction to submit its reply in the contempt petition.
Earlier, during the hearing on Tuesday, the PMLN counsel submitted before the court that reserved seats were awarded to a party not even part of the case.
Justice Ayesha A Malik, however, responded to the counsel that this point has already been addressed in the decision. Further, Justice Ayesha asked the PMLN counsel as how he can file a review without implementing the original decision. “You keep naming one political party repeatedly—leave that aside,” Justice Aqeel told the counsel, adding that the Supreme Court made its decision according to the Constitution. “Show us what mistake is there in the decision,” Justice Aqeel asked the PMLN counsel, adding that the points by the counsel are the ones they had learned in law school.
Meanwhile, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for the ECP, took the rostrum. Justice Aqeel asked him as to how ECP was affected by the decision. Justice Ayesha asked the ECP counsel as to how he was the aggrieved party in the case. The counsel contended that PTI didn’t come to court to seek relief but the court granted it the relief as well. Justice Hashim asked the ECP counsel whether he had implemented the SC decision. “Answer this in yes or no,” Justice Hashim asked the counsel to which Sikandar Bashir replied that they have implemented it only to the extent of one paragraph. At this, Justice Aqeel asked whether it was his personal discretion which paragraph to implement.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday).
