Reserved seats case: SC questions legality of SIC’s seats

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned how Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), which had not contested the general election, could claim reserved seats.

The SC held a live hearing on the case concerning reserved seats, with an 11-member larger bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel representing the ruling coalition, presented arguments stating that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) did not contest the general election.

He explained that the party’s chairman had contested as an independent candidate and that several successful independent candidates later joined the SIC.

Justice Musarrat Hilali raised critical questions, asking how a political party that was not part of parliament could include independents.

She questioned how the SIC, which hadn’t contested elections, could claim reserved seats.

Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that SIC’s appeal had already been unanimously dismissed, and members elected on reserved seats were de-notified—without any prior notice.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that the court had earlier nullified the Election Commission’s notification. The case before the court was filed under Article 185(3), according to the counsel.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked how Article 225 applies to this case. Makhdoom responded that reserved seats are allotted based on proportional representation, and the candidates’ lists are submitted before the elections.

Justice Mandokhel said that it was necessary to give notice to the candidates who won on reserved seats before de-notifying them. If the court finds the majority decision correct, the review appeal will be rejected.

Immediate reinstatement plea of sacked HEC ED rejected

The counsel clarified that PTI was not originally a party in this case but became involved through a miscellaneous application, only seeking to assist the court. Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that it was an accepted fact that Sunni Ittehad Council and PTI did not win any seats.

Justice Mandokhail noted that in his decision, he declared 39 members as affiliated with PTI based on their nomination papers where they listed PTI as their party. Justice Aminuddin remarked that this record was not available before the court.

Justice Mandokhail criticized the presiding officers for not fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities and said that in the court’s decision, it was clearly mentioned that voters must not be deprived of their right to vote.

He further said that the absence of an election symbol does not invalidate a political party, as candidates, not parties, contest elections.

The election symbol, he said, is merely for public clarity. “If the independents had joined PTI instead of SIC, there wouldn’t have been any issue,” he added.

He also remarked that had SIC contested on its own symbol, the matter wouldn’t have arisen.

The hearing has been adjourned until 11:30 AM on Tuesday. Sunni Ittehad Council’s lawyer Faisal Chaudhry will begin his arguments tomorrow.