SC to establish legal principles in high-profile cases: Justice Mandokhail

ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to decide first scores of petitions pending before it, challenging the vires of the 26th constitutional amendment and after that all the related cases should be heard.

An eleven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the review petitions of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League, Nawaz (PMLN) and Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) against July 12, 2024 judgment on reserved seats for women and minorities in National and Provincial Assemblies.

During the hearing Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that these are political cases and will continue on. “We don’t know what the outcome of these cases will be tomorrow—whether we are here or not”, Justice Mandokhail continued adding that they have examples of the Panama case and Bhutto reference before them. “What we are trying to do is to establish principles for the cases of ordinary petitioners,” Justice Mandokhail maintained.

Hamid Khan, senior lawyer and counsel for Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) informed the bench that there was an objection filed against the bench formation and no appeal has yet been heard against this objection. He requested the court to schedule a hearing on that objection. Justice Aminuddin Khan, however, told the learned counsel that they will deal with that application later and asked Khan to proceed with his arguments. Hamid Khan requested that the court to first decide on the live streaming application. Justice Aminuddin Khan replied that not every request will be decided first adding that there are also applications from Faisal Siddiqi, therefore, they will listen to all and decide collectively.

Hamid Khan contended that many petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment are pending, and that all related cases should be heard after the 26th Amendment case is decided. Justice Aminuddin inquired whether Khan wanted the current case to be heard only after that decision. Hamid Khan responded affirmatively.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked Hamid Khan as to what he was requesting in his petition. Khan replied that the petition calls for reconstitution of the bench adding that an appeal has been filed against the objections raised on the petition. Justice Aminuddin Khan, however, remarked that appeals against such objections will be scheduled wherever appropriate.

Hamid Khan argued that the main case proceedings on reserved seats were broadcast live and the public was well aware of them. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that a two-member committee comprising himself and Justice Athar Minallah was formed to propose a mechanism for live streaming in all courtrooms. To date, the matter has not come up again for discussion and the Supreme Court even launched a YouTube channel for this purpose.

Meanwhile, Makhdom Ali Khan, counsel for PMLN, noted that before Article 191A existed, review petitions were filed under Article 188. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether Supreme Court rules still apply today. Makhdoom replied that clear provisions in Article 191A take precedence over the rules. However, if the rules are consistent with the 26th Amendment, they should be considered.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that these are political cases and will keep unfolding adding that they don’t know what the outcomes may be. “We have the Panama and Bhutto reference cases as precedents but what we aim to do is set principles for ordinary citizens’ cases”, Justice Mandokhail remarked.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Thursday) at 11:30 am wherein Makhdoom Ali Khan will continue his arguments.