Supreme Court reserves verdict in SIC special seats case

The Supreme Court has reserved its ruling on the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) appeal, challenging the verdict of Peshawar High Court (PHC) denying the party special seats for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

A 13-member full court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa heard the SIC’s plea and reserved its verdict after all sides concluded their arguments on Tuesday.

Other members of the bench were Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

The court on July 2 had adjourned the hearing until July 9 after Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan and Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), had concluded their arguments.

The case proceedings were telecast live at Supreme Court’s YouTube channel.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, CJP Isa remarked that the full court members will hold consultations about the decision announcement. “Nothing can be said now about when the decision will be announced or wheter it would be short or detailed,” Justice Isa added.

Apex court staff, however, said that the court will not pronounce its verdict today.

Earlier, Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked whether the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) was a parliamentary, and not a political party.

During the hearing of SIC’s reserved seats case, Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for the SIC, replied that the SIC was not only a parliamentary party but was also a political party.

Siddiqui said that the apex court was to ascertain whether the election commission fulfilled its responsibility under Article 218 of the constitution. “I will prove that the commission did not fulfill its responsibility,” he said categorically.

Siddiqui said it was argued that the SIC did not contest the general elections held on February 8, 2024. “It was also said that the party did not submit the list for the reserved seats.”   

The lawyer reminded the bench that the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) did not win a single seat in the 2018 general elections. “And yet it was allotted three reserved seats.”

The CJP then asked Siddiqui who was the parliamentary leader of the SIC. “I will tell you later,” SIC’s lawyer replied.

The chief justice said it was astonishing that he did not know the name of the parliamentary leader of the party he was representing.

Siddiqui said in his opinion the question was not relevant.

He went on to say that the SIC had approached the ECP even before it approached the SC. “How tragic that the commission is negating its own documents,” the SIC’s lawyer said, and questioned, "Does that not show a bad intention on the part of the ECP?”

Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked, “Forget what the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had said. The question is what the ECP did was as per the constitution.”  

The CJP then said the question was, what was the party’s status on the election day? “Tomorrow the SIC and the PTI may be each other rivals,” he remarked.

Justice Athar Minallah was of the view that any political party which had representation in the parliament was a parliamentary party.

Justice Minallah then asked the SIC’s lawyer whether the party had challenged in court the ECP’s decision to allot reserved seats to the BAP.  

Siddiqui told the judge that had that been the case, the election commission would have simply said that it had made a mistake. “The truth of the matter is that the commission is giving an impression that it did not give any such decision.” 

Justice Irfan Saadat asked whether the BAP contested the elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).

“Yes, the party did contest the elections in the province, but failed to win a single seat,” SIC’s lawyer informed.

“The fact is your case is different; the SIC did not field a single candidate in the February 8 elections,” the judge said.

Justice Mandokhel opined that a parliamentary party was different from a political party. “The decisions taken inside the parliament are taken by a parliamentary party,” he said, and added, “A political party cannot take such decisions.”

The judge further said that a parliamentary party was not bound the follow a political party’s instructions. “For instance, in the case of voting for the seat of prime minister, it is not mandatory for a parliamentary party to follow what the political party has decided.”

Siddiqui said he agreed with Justice Mandokhel’s remarks.

The judge then inquired from the SIC’s lawyer what would be the situation if a party won seats from all provinces, barring one.

Siddiqui told him that the BAP had won seats in the 2018 elections from all provinces, except KP.

Siddiqui prayed to the apex court to see whether the ECP treated the SIC differently.

Justice Isa said this meant that what the election commission had done in 2018 was right.

Addressing the SIC’s lawyer, the chief justice said he did not want to embarrass him. “But do you really believe that the elections held in 2018 were free and fair?”

Siddiqui said to the CJP that he wanted to respond to his remark about why the court should intervene in what the ECP had done. “The apex court should keep in view the illegal steps the election commission had taken,” he said, adding, “No person belonging to a minority community can ever become a member of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F). And still, the party was allotted a seat reserved for minorities.”

Justice Mandokhel asked the SIC’s lawyer whether he meant to say that the JUI-F could not be allotted a minority seat.   

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that the party’s lawyer Kamran Murtaza had already stated that that was not true.

“JUI-F’s constitution, which I have downloaded from the party’s website, does not support what Murtaza said,” Siddiqui said.

The chief justice asked the SIC’s lawyer whether the people belonging to the Sunni sect could only join his party.

Siddiqui replied no that was not the case. “Muslims belonging to every sect can join the SIC.”

Justice Mandokhel then asked whether the SIC considered people of other sects Muslims.  

“Do you want the court to decide the case in the light of the constitution?” Justice Isa questioned. The SIC’s lawyer replied in the affirmative.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked whether anywhere in the constitution it was written that reserved seats belonging to a party could be given to any other party. Siddiqui said no that was not the case.

The CJP said he did not think that the SIC’s lawyer was giving answers to the questions put to him. “You are raising new points,” he said.

“No sir, this is a completely wrong impression. The points I am shedding light on have already been raised during the case’s hearing several times,” the lawyer said.

The chief justice asked Siddiqui that since he was representing the SIC, he should refrain from mentioning PTI in his arguments.

“According to the principle of proportional representation, the SIC is not entitled to even a single reserved seat,” the CJP remarked, and added that the party won not a single seat in the elections held on February 8 this year.  

Justice Minallah opined that the discussion on the parliament implied that the people’s right to vote was being discussed.

“A political party was not allowed to contest the polls. Don’t you think that the apex court should look into why it was done?” the judge questioned.

The SIC’s lawyer said that 30 reserved seats were distributed in the KP Assembly among different parties after the Feb 8 elections. “The PML-N got five reserved seats against two National Assembly seats the party had won from KP,” Siddiqui said, adding, “Whether the party whose candidates have won just 18 general seats should be given 30 reserved seats.”

Seen in this context, Justice Isa said, the SIC was not entitled even to a single reserved seat, since it had won not a single general seat in the polls. “You are giving arguments on the PTI’s case. In fact you are giving arguments against your own party.”

“Those whom you call independent candidates in fact are not independent,” Siddiqui said.

The CJP replied that if the court accepted what he was saying, then there was no basis for his case. “You will understand this soon.”

“If we accept your arguments, then reserved seats will go the PTI,” the chief justice said.

No, SIC’s lawyer replied, these seats would go to the SIC, which had representation in the parliament.

Justice Minallah lamented that no one on the bench was interested in discussing the ‘right to vote’. “On February 8, people voted for one party.”

“Elections should be transparent. If we analyze the situation, people gave the mandate to one party, which was thrown out of the electoral race,” the judge said, and in the same breath added, “The issue is not what happened to that party. It is people’s right to vote that matters.”

“Should we allow the people’s rights to be trampled upon?”

The bench, Justice Minallah opined, also needed to ask whether the elections were held in normal circumstances. “What were the circumstances that forced the independent candidates backed by a party had to join another party?” he questioned.   

Siddiqui said it was the election commission’s duty to tell the PTI-backed independents not to join the SIC. “The ECP did not stick to one argument. It kept changing its stances,” the SIC’s lawyer lamented.

Justice Mandokhel then asked whether Hamid Raza had submitted to the ECP the certificate that could show his association with the SIC.

Siddiqui replied, “No. It was the PTI’s certificate which he had submitted.”

Justice Mandokhel said that the election commission had admitted that a candidate submitting an affidavit of his association with a particular party could not join any other party.

Addressing the SIC’s lawyer, Justice Minallah asked, “Why don’t you say that your party candidates were forced to opt for other symbols?”

“Before the verdict on PTI’s electoral symbol, Hamid Raza was a PTI’s candidate,” the judge said, adding, “The fact is that the election commission made a wrong interpretation of the decision which led to the issue under review.”   

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for PTI-backed independent candidates, told the court that the PTI candidates were declared ‘independent’ in the light of the election commission’s decision.

Justice Mandokhel said there was no case in his knowledge in which all candidates had been declared independent.

Justice Minallah said that the record submitted by the ECP to the SC was incomplete.

Raja, too, said that the commission had concealed its documents from the apex court. “And what it has already submitted is not reliable either.”

Justice Mandokhel asked him whether he meant to say that there was nothing wrong with the candidates joining the SIC even when the PTI existed as a party.

“When we were declared independent, we had the right to join the SIC,” Raja said, adding, “We had no other option but to join the SIC.”

Raja also asked where in Article 51 it was written that winning at least one general seat was a prerequisite for getting reserved seats.

Reporter Amanat Gishkori