Supreme Court hears SIC’s reserved seats case

A 13-member full court bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa, resumed the hearing of the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) reserved case on Monday, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.  

Justice Musarrat Hilali is not part of the bench due to poor health.

Lawyers representing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), PPP, deseated members of the assemblies and the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan will give arguments today.

The SC will today complete hearing of the case.

During the hearing yesterday, SIC’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui gave his arguments in the case.

As the hearing began on Monday, Justice Jamal Mandokhel of the Supreme Court (SC) asked how a political party that did not contest the general elections could be allotted reserved seats.

SIC’s counsel Faisal Siddiqui argued that an independent candidate after getting elected could join any political party. He opined that the ECP’s definition of a political party was wrong. “The election commission made a wrong interpretation of the constitution while giving the decision in the case,” the SIC lawyer said.

On the other hand, in its reply submitted to the SC a couple of days ago, the ECP had stated that the SIC ‘is no longer entitled to the reserved seats’. It reiterated that the SIC’s eligibility was compromised on several grounds.

On May 6, a three-member bench of the SC, headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, had suspended the ECP and the PHC’s verdicts on the SIC’s plea, seeking reserved seats.

The SIC had challenged in the apex court the ECP and the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) decisions, which deprived the party of reserved seats in the assemblies.  

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Ryr1gzIAA

Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for the SIC, said that even the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) did not allow people belonging to minority communities to become its members. “There is also a section in the party’s manifesto that bars any person from a minority community to become its member,” he said, and added, “Even then the party has been given reserved seats.”

Chief Justice Isa remarked that he should not give such a statement without giving any evidence; please submit documents to prove your point.

“I will not only submit the documents. But the ECP too will confirm what I have said,” the SIC’s lawyer replied.

He further said that Kanwal Shauzab would be the SIC’s candidate if the party got reserved seats.

Siddiqui went on to say that the apex court had asked about the nomination papers filed by Sahibzada Hamid Raza. “In his nomination papers, Sahibzada had shown his association with the SIC,” he added.    

Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked the SIC’s lawyer whether Sahibzada had submitted the party’s certificate along with the nomination papers.

Siddiqui replied that the ECP created the situation in which Sahibzada was forced not to submit the certificate; thus enabling the election commission to allot him an electoral symbol of an independent candidate.

SIC’s lawyer told the court that when the ECP was approached to get Sahibzada’s nomination papers, it presented these papers.

The CJP asked him to distribute copies of these papers to all apex court judges.

Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the government, informed that the election schedule was released under the Election Act. “And under section 206 of the Act, nomination papers should have been filed before the last date, and in this case, even the date was extended.”

He further said that December 24 was announced as the deadline for the submission of the list of reserved seats. “And the election commission will confirm that the SIC did not submit the list,” Advocate Makhdoom added.

He then referred to the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) verdict in the reserved seats case, and said that the high court had upheld the ECP’s decision.  

The chief justice wondered why both SIC lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, throughout the hearing, did not mention the PHC’s decision even once. “It is amazing that both lawyers alluded to the election commission’s verdict, but not the high court’s.”

Advocate Makhdoom said the court had to interpret article 51 of the constitution.

On the occasion, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked when the ECP had issued the notification in which it acknowledged that the SIC was a parliamentary party. “Only the election commission can tell you about that,” the government’s lawyer replied.

He further said that when the SC gave a ‘stay’ in the case, the membership of those who had reached the assemblies on reserved seats was suspended.

Advocate Makhdoom said nobody contested the February 8 election on the SIC ticket.

He went on to say that a five-member bench of the PHC had given the ruling against the SIC. “The party had informed the ECP that independents had joined it.”

The CJP said that the case under review was not related to the PTI but to the SIC. “Why the former is being referred to again and again during the case’s hearing is beyond comprehension,” he said, adding, “If the PTI had any issues, it could have filed an intra-court appeal in the PHC. It could have even moved the SC.”

“Which party was under pressure and which was not is not our headache. I am at a loss to understand why the court is being dragged into the matters we are least bothered about.”

“Judges can only discuss only those points which have been challenged,” the chief justice said.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that it was the SC’s duty to safeguard the rights of citizens. “It is the apex court’s responsibility to protect the rights of voters.”

“How on earth the ECP could declare PTI candidates ‘independents’,” the judge wondered.

Concurring with Justice Mansoor’s viewpoint, Justice Muneeb Akhtar also asked how the election commission arrived at the conclusion that the candidates were independents, and did not belong to the PTI.    

The judge asked under which law, the ECP was authorized to declare a members of assemblies members of another political party.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel also said that the election commission was not authorized to declare any assembly member ‘independent’.

Justice Muneeb remarked that while PML-N, PPP and JUI-F were given reserved seats, the PTI’s case was treated differently.

Advocate Makhdoom said that the PTI-backed independent candidates after winning their seats had joined the SIC, while two PTI legislators asked the ECP to declare them ‘independents’.  

Justice Athar Minallah opined that it was incumbent upon the commission to protect the rights of voters.

Justice Yahya Afridi said there was a need to determine whether the decision taken by members of a political party to join another party was right in the light of the constitution.

Justice Mandokhel remarked that no candidate had the right to give the declaration of one party and later join the other. “In my opinion, any member of an assembly doing so may be declared ineligible.”

Justice Minallah said that the election commission had on February 2 declared these candidates ‘independents’. “After that, these people had no other choice,” the judge said, adding, “Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Mandokhel had raised some questions.”

The issue, he went on to say, arose following the ECP’s February 2 order. “The truth of the matter is that the commission had made a wrong interpretation of the court’s decision on the PTI’s electoral symbol.” Why should people pay the price for the mistake made by the ECP,” Justice Minallah questioned.

Justice Afridi said that a winning independent candidate could not be forced to join any political party three days after the issuance of a notification.

Justice Mandokhel remarked that only Form-33 would tell who was from which party.  

Justice Minallah was of the view that if the constitution was to be safeguarded, holding free, fair and transparent elections was a must. “And it is the election commission’s job to ensure that elections held are free, fair and transparent.”

The judge said that when never in the past the issue of reserved seats arose, why it had raised its head now.

He went on to say that the apex court also had to look into whether the elections were engineered.  

“Millions of people had voted in the February 8 elections, and it is binding on us to protect their rights,” Justice Mansoor said, adding, “The fact is that the candidates had not dissociated themselves from the PTI.”

Advocate Makhdoom said that never ever in the past, a party not fielding its candidates in elections had demanded reserved seats.  

However, at the same time he said that nobody wanted to deny voters their rights.

“But independents could not join the party which did not have any representation in assemblies,” the government’s lawyer added.

Justice Afridi asked Makhdoom whether these seats could be left vacant. The latter replied no they can’t.

Justice Minallah said that despite the fact that the election commission had recognized the SIC as a political party, still, its reserved seats were distributed among other parties.

But Justice Mandokhel said that the representation of women and minorities in assemblies could not be overlooked either.

The chief justice was of the view that if as per the manifesto of a party, no person from a minority community could become a member of that party, then that party would not be given minority seats. “The same principle applies in case a party bars women from becoming its members,” he explained.

Advocate Makhdoom said that only a political party was allowed to contest elections.

Justice Ayesha Malik inquired what he meant by a political party.

The government’s lawyer replied that a political party was the one which submitted the list for reserved seats.

“Do you mean to say that if a party does not submit the list, it would not be deemed a political party?” Justice Ayesha questioned.

The judge further asked Advocate Makhdoom whether the government wanted to completely change the February 8 general elections’ results by denying a certain party reserved seats. “Whether those parties which failed to get a majority in the elections should be turned into majority parties,” Justice Ayesha asked.

The CJP said it was the beauty of a system that people from minorities also joined a political party.

Agreeing with the chief justice’s viewpoint, Justice Minallah said that both minorities and women should be given representation in the parliament. “What we are witnessing today is the replay of 2018 general elections. But sadly we have not learnt lessons from history,” the judge regretted.

 Reporter: Amanat Gishkori