Reserved seats: SIC raises 5 objections to bench hearing review petitions

ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) Saturday raised objections over the constitutional bench hearing review petitions against its judgment in the reserved seats case, and prayed for sending the petitions to the Committee of the Supreme Court for reconstitution and formation of the bench.

The SIC, through its counsel Faisal Siddiqui, filed an application in the Supreme Court under Article 187(1) of the Constitution as well as Rule 6 of Supreme Court Rules 1980, for reconstitution and formation of the bench.

The SIC filed the application in review petitions, filed by the PMLN against the judgment delivered on July 12, 2024 by a full court of the Supreme Court, declaring that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was entitled to get reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and provincial assemblies.

The SIC, while raising five objections on the constitutional bench hearing the review petitions, prayed the apex court to send the present Civil Review Petition, as well as other connected Civil Review Petitions, to the committee under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, for reconstitution and formation of the bench under Rule 8, Order XXVI, The Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

It contended that the present Civil Review Petition came up for hearing on May 6, 2025 and the Bench (as on May 6, 2025) only comprised judges nominated to the Constitutional Bench under Article 191A of the Constitution 1973.

Secondly, it did not comprise the judges, namely: Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan. Thirdly, the bench comprised 13 judges nominated to the Constitutional Bench. Fourthly, the fixation of the present petition was assigned by the Committee for Constitutional Benches under Section 2A and not under Section 2, The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

The SIC, while raising the first objection on the bench, submitted that the judgment under review was passed by the full court of 13 judges of the Supreme Court, and the judgment under review cannot be reviewed by this present bench of eleven judges of the Supreme Court, because it is settled law that only the same numerical strength of judges can review a judgment under its review jurisdiction.

Raising the second objection, the SIC contended that since the two dissenting judges of the original bench including Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbassi had not recused themselves, therefore, the present bench could not be reconstituted from a 13-member bench to an eleven-member bench by excluding the dissenting judges.

Under the third objection, the SIC argued that if the two dissenting members of the original bench had been excluded by the present bench, then, under no principle of constitutional or statutory law, could they be deemed part of the present bench. Therefore, treating the bench as a thirteen-member panel and subsequently counting the dissenting members’ prior dismissal decision in the final adjudication amounted to a fictional and irrational interpretation.

Under the fourth objection, the SIC contended that the judgment under review was not delivered under pre-existing appellate jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 191A(3), Constitution, 1973 and thus, the present review application cannot be considered to be a review application to be transferred under Article 191A(5), Constitution, 1973. “Therefore, the present review petition is to be heard and adjudicated upon by all the same serving judges who were part of the full court bench which delivered the judgment under review,” the SIC stressed.

Under the fifth objection, the SIC submitted that as the Constitutional Bench under Article 191A(6), Constitution, 1973, has not formulated any rules regulating practice and procedure of the Constitutional Benches (including Review Applications), thus, Order XXVI, The Supreme Court Rules, 1980, applies to the Constitutional Bench.

The SIC contended that under said Rule 8, Order XXVI, the application for review shall be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.

“Therefore, this present review petition is to be heard and adjudicated by all the same serving judges who were part of the full court bench which delivered the judgment under review,” the SIC submitted.