The Supreme Court will announce its verdict on a case concerning the reserved seats of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Friday (tomorrow). The cause list was issued on Thursday.
A second consultative meeting, chaired by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, took place with all 13 judges of the full court in attendance. On Wednesday, the full court bench deliberated on the SIC’s reserved seats for almost two hours.
Judges in attendance included 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.
Proceedings
SIC counsel Faisal Siddiqui argued before the Supreme Court that the Election Commission (ECP) still needed to fulfil its responsibility. As the hearing resumed on the SIC’s plea regarding reserved seats for women and minorities, Siddiqui stated, “I will take 15 minutes to argue my point.”
Siddiqui claimed that the ECP argued that the SIC did not participate in the elections or submit the list of candidates for reserved seats. He pointed out that the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) won no seats in 2018 but got three reserved seats. The ECP submitted a prejudiced response regarding the BAP election.
He stated that the issue was raised before the ECP moved to the Supreme Court and added that the ECP’s claim contradicted its documents. He asked, “Isn’t it a distortion of facts?”
Justice Mandokhail asked if the ECP’s decision was by the Constitution. Siddiqui replied that in 2018, it was by the law.
Justice Minallah inquired whether the ECP decision on BAP’s reserved seats was challenged. Siddiqui said the ECP would have admitted the mistake but acted as if the decision regarding BAP did not exist.
Justice Saadat asked if BAP participated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections. Siddiqui replied that BAP contested but did not win a seat. Justice Saadat noted that the SIC case differed from BAP’s since SIC did not participate in the elections.
Justice Mandokhail explained the difference between a political party and a parliamentary party, stating that the parliamentary party makes decisions in parliament, not the political party. For example, the parliamentary party decides whether to vote for the prime minister. Siddiqui agreed with this distinction.
The courtroom laughed when Justice Mandokhail called BAP (father) a weird name.
Justice Mandokhail asked what would happen if a party won seats in three provinces but not in one. Siddiqui replied that BAP won seats in other regions but not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Chief Justice Isa asked Siddiqui if he wanted the Supreme Court to take judicial notice of the 2018 election anomaly. Siddiqui requested the court to consider the discriminatory attitude of the ECP. Chief Justice Isa questioned whether the ECP’s interpretation in 2018 was correct and if the Supreme Court was bound by it. He concluded, “I don’t want to embarrass you; were the 2018 elections right?”