Today’s Supreme Court hearing on ‘reserved seats case’ in a nutshell

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday conducted live hearing of a petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) against the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) verdict.

During the case proceedings, Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court indicated that reserved seats might be allocated to SIC’s ally party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) after addressing certain errors.

Reserved seats case: SC hears SIC’s plea challenging PHC’s judgment

The 13-member bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Athar Minallah. Justice Musarrat Hilali was absent due to health concerns.

CJP Isa emphasised that parliamentary debate should address these issues, questioning the necessity of the Supreme Court’s involvement in every matter. He noted the potential to leave seats vacant as per Article 51, which mandates that seats cannot remain unoccupied.

Justice Athar Minallah said that correcting errors could allow the allocation of seats to PTI. His statement raises concerns about the disenfranchisement of voters by either the political party or the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). He underscored the necessity of protecting voter rights.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned the ECP’s handling of independent candidates joining SIC, noting inconsistencies in recognising SIC as a parliamentary party despite it not contesting elections. Justice Muneeb Akhtar also criticised the ECP’s contradictory stance on SIC’s status.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the reserved seats in question should rightfully belong to PTI, not SIC. Justice Irfan Saadat questioned the legitimacy of recognising a non-participating entity as a political party, while Justice Mandokhail reiterated that voters had chosen PTI, not SIC.

Punjab budget proposes 20pc salary raise, 15pc pension increase

SIC’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that a party does not need to contest elections to be eligible for reserved seats, citing historical changes in the law. However, the core issue remained that SIC did not participate in the elections.

Outside the court, PTI’s lawyer, Naeem Panjutha, highlighted the significance of the court’s remarks, asserting that a party’s status persists despite not securing an electoral symbol and criticising the opposition’s attempts to claim PTI’s seats.

Supreme Court adjourned the hearing until Tuesday (June 4).