ISLAMABAD – Justice Athar Minallah, while referring to the Supreme Court verdict which upheld an Election Commission of Pakistan order of declaring the PTI intra-party elections null and void, remarked on Thursday that the ECP had misinterpreted the court’s verdict when it excluded the Pakistan Tehreeke-Insaf from the election process.
The judge’s comments came during the hearing of the petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council – an ally of the PTI – challenging the denial of reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies.
The PTI had, after losing its electoral symbol ‘bat’, directed the independent candidates who won election with its backing to join the SIC.
A full-court bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, conducted Thursday’s proceedings.
Other judges on the bench were Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
THE HEARING
At the outset of the hearing, ECP lawyer Sikandar Bashir came to the rostrum to advance his arguments.
At one point, Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Election Commission but it did not mean that the party should be excluded from the elections.
He reiterated that the apex court never intended to exclude the PTI from the elections.
Justice Athar Minallah commented that the electoral exercise determines the will of the electorate, adding that if someone raises questions over elections, the matter goes to the Election Commission.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that a candidate runs for election, not a political party, adding that a candidate just demonstrates his political affiliation and it is their right that they get an electoral symbol.
He questioned how the ECP declared [these] candidates independent and under which law.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the answer to this query was that the ECP kept this party [PTI] out of the election simply because it did not have an election symbol. “Just tell us when and where the ECP had these thoughts,” he questioned.
Justice Athar Manullah interjected, remarking that this means the ECP wrongly interpreted the verdict of the Supreme Court and expelled a main party from the election process.
During the course of proceedings, CJP Isa observed that there is a conflict in the documents provided to the court by the Election Commission.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing until July 1.
GOVT FILES RESPONSE
In its 30-page written submission filed through Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan on Wednesday, the federal government sought dismissal of the instant petition, contending that the SIC was not entitled to reserved seats for minorities and women as it was composed entirely of independent candidates.
It maintained that the SIC did not field even a single candidate in the Feb 8 elections or furnish a list required under Section 104 of the Elections Act 2017.
The only constitutionally permissible solution, the government added in its response, was to allot the additional seats to other parties in proportion to the general seats secured by them based on the formula having been figured out after the exclusion of winning independent candidates.
PTI SEEKS TO BECOME PARTY
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, which had directed the independent candidates who won election with its backing to join the Sunni Ittehad Council after losing its electoral symbol ‘bat’, has sought to become party to the case through a petition filed with the apex court.
The move came after the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) levelled certain allegations against the party during the hearing on the SIC petition.
The PTI accused the ECP of “unconstitutionally” allocating reserved seats belonging to the PTI-SIC alliance to other political groups.
The PTI petition details that both PTI and SIC were deprived of reserved seats despite being eligible.
PREVIOUS HEARING
During the proceedings on June 25, CJP Isa remarked that neither the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) nor any of its elected representative were respondents in the case.
“Since the instant case concerns the allocation of reserved seats for the SIC, then why the case which was not before the bench was being discussed,” he asked.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned how the ECP could declare all the [PTI-backed] candidates as independents when it has not had such an authority.
Justice Ayesha A Malik remarked that allocating reserved seats against the principle of proportional representation was not permissible. She also questioned the advantages other parties would gain if the SIC lost this case.
Justice Minallah interjected at one point, emphasising the importance of women and minorities having representation in Parliament. He noted that the PML-N and PPP faced similar issues in the past without support from the Supreme Court.
“This mirrors the situation from 2018 where one party is the aggrieved party. The court has not learned from past instances,” Justice Minallah added.
The judge predicted that there would inevitably come a time in the future when the apex court would regret its decision once again.
BACKGROUND
In March, the ECP ruled that the SIC was not entitled to claim quota for reserved seats “due to having non-curable legal defects and violation of a mandatory provision of submission of party list for reserved seats”.
Later, the ECP accepted applications of the opposing parties and decided that the seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain vacant and would be allocated by a proportional representation process on the basis of seats won by political parties.
The development resulted in the PTI-backed SIC losing a total of 77 reserved seats – 23 National Assembly seats (20 women and 3 minorities), 25 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly seats (21 women and 4 minorities), two Sindh Assembly seats (women) and 27 Punjab Assembly seats (24 women and 3 minority).
The PTI dismissed the ECP verdict as unconstitutional.
The SIC then challenged the ECP ruling in the Peshawar High Court, but its plea was dismissed.
In May, a three-judge bench of the apex court took up a petition filed by the SIC. The court suspended the ECP decision to allocate SIC’s reserved seats to other parties.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, during the proceedings, remarked that the mandate given by the people should be properly represented in parliament.
The court sent the matter of reserved seats to the Judges Committee to decide whether the case would be heard by the same bench or a larger bench would be constituted.
The court also ordered the ECP to suspended victory notifications of 77 lawmakers [on reserved seats], causing the ruling coalition to lose its two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
In late May, a full court was constituted to hear the case.
