Reserved seats case: SIC urges CJP to preside over bench hearing review pleas

ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) Friday requested that Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Yahya Afridi preside over the bench hearing the review petitions against the Supreme Court judgment delivered on July 12 declaring that PTI was entitled to the reserved seats for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.

The SIC filed three civil miscellaneous applications (CMAs) with the apex court under Article 187 of the Constitution and under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 objecting to the formation of the 11-member constitutional bench hearing the review petitions against July 12, 2024 judgment on reserved seats.

The SIC filed three pleas in response to another review petition filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the order passed by the majority judges in Chambers on September 14, 2024 on the reserved seats directing the ECP to implement in letter and spirit its judgment on July 12, 2024, with the warning that refusal by the electoral body to perform legally binding obligation may result in serious consequences.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in its another review petition had prayed the apex court that the impugned order dated 14-9-2024 passed by the majority judges in Chambers may be reviewed and set aside.

It is pertinent to mention that on September 14, 2024 the eight majority judges issued an order on the plea of Election Commission of Pakistan seeking guidance on the point that in absence of a valid organizational structure of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), who will confirm the political affiliation of the returned candidates (MNAs and MPAs) on behalf of PTI, who had filed their statements in light of the Supreme Court Order dated 12 July 2024.

The eight majority judges included 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

They had directed the ECP to implement in letter and spirit its judgment delivered on July 12 on reserved seats with the warning that refusal by the electoral body to perform legally binding obligation may result in serious consequences.

“Continued failure of, and refusal by, the Commission to perform this legally binding obligation may, have consequences”, the 4-page order had stated.

The eight judges had declared that putting together the record placed before them, and considering the same in the light of the Short Order, leaves in little doubt that the clarification sought by the Commission in terms of the CMA 7540/2024 is nothing more than a contrived device and the adoption of dilatory tactics, adopted to delay, defeat and obstruct implementation of the decision of the Court.

Meanwhile, the SIC while filing three applications with the Supreme Court through its counsel Ajmal Ghaffar Tooru, prayed the apex court that the review bench presently constituted be reconstituted by including 12 judges who were members of the original bench of the Supreme Court that gave the impugned judgment dated 12 July 2024 and were presently available as judges.

It further prayed that the present chief justice, who was a member of the original bench, preside over the review bench.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) have filed the review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 12 July 2024 passed by the full court of the Supreme Court comprising the available judges at that time.

The SIC submitted that the said judgment was given on by full court comprising 13 available judges namely Qazi Faez Isa, then Chief Justice, and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Amin Uddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A. Malik, Athar Minallah, Sayed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

The SIC submitted that these appeals and connected petitions were decided by judgment dated 12 July 2024, with eight judges giving a majority opinion headed by senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah who wrote the opinion of the Court.

Justice Yahya Afridi wrote a separate note, neither dissenting nor agreeing entirely with the majority opinion.

The then chief justice Qazi Faez Issa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel wrote a partly dissenting opinion. Justice Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote strong dissenting opinions.

It further submitted that after the retirement of last chief justice (Qazi Faez Isa) on 25th October 2024, these petitions were kept pending, perhaps waiting for new appointments to the Supreme Court under a preplanned design of packing the Supreme Court with a number of new judges, thus disturbing the balance of the court.

The SIC contended that the review petitions were fixed on 06 May 2025 before a bench of 13 judges. It was legally strange to notice that the thirteen-member bench so constituted did not include six judges who heard and decided the case resulting in impugned judgment dated 12 July 2024.

These judges are Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Athar Minallah, Shahid Waheed and Irfan Saadat Khan who are all available judges of this Court with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah being the author judge of the majority opinion,” the SIC submitted

It, however, contended that six judges namely Justice Mussarat Hilali, Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi, who were not members of the original bench, have been included.

The SIC submitted that after hearing on 6 May 2025, the notice on the review petitions was issued for the following day (i.e. 7 May 2025) by a majority of 11 to 2 with Justices Ayesha A. Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi dissenting.

The SIC contended that it was a settled proposition of law that the review petitions were heard by the same judges and the same number of judges who heard and gave the impugned judgment.

Thus the formation of bench hearing the present review petitions is unconstitutional, illegal and against the Supreme Court Rules,” SIC submitted adding that the inclusion of Justice Mussarat Hilali, Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi in the review bench was totally unconstitutional, illegal, violative of the rules and against convention, practice and procedural norms in this behalf.

The SIC submitted that as Justice Qazi Faez had retired, he could be replaced by one of the new judges but 12 original judges rendering judgment dated 12 July 2024 are available and should have been part of the review bench.

“It is absolutely unconstitutional, illegal, contrary to the Rules and repugnant to the established practice and precedent that the author judge of the opinion of the court is excluded from the review bench,” the SIC submitted.

It further submitted that in any case, the judges who did not hear the original case resulting in the impugned judgment dated 12 July 2024 stood disqualified to hear this objection petition because otherwise they would be judges in their own cause and in other words, they could not decide if they should be part of the review bench or not. The SIC prayed that the 26th Amendment case be decided before proceeding with the review petitions regarding reserved seats.