ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the women and non-Muslims’ reserved seats allocated over and above the initially allotted reserved seats to the political parties.
A Full Court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, on Tuesday, heard the petitions of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s verdict on reserved seats of women and non-Muslims.
Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, the counsel of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, and Makhdoom Ali Khan, who represented affected candidates elected on reserved seats, had already made their submission, stating that the SIC is no longer entitled to the reserved seats as it has not contested General Elections of February 2024 and win any seats.
During the proceeding, Justice Athar Minallah questioned whether the general elections were conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner and a conducive atmosphere was provided to all the political parties. He noted that the Commission has committed grave violation.
Justice Athar again asked is it not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to correct the wrong committed by the Commission, as it misinterpreted the SC judgment dated January 13, 24.
Justice Jamal inquired from SIC’s Counsel Faisal Siddiqui that if the bench declare that the ECP did not hold elections 2024 fairly and justly, then what would happen? He replied then everything would have to be reversed.
At the onset of the hearing, Faisal argued whether under Article 218 of the Constitution, the ECP has not performed its functions arbitrarily, dishonestly and discriminately. He acknowledged that the SIC did not contest elections, won any seat, and submitted the list of candidates for reserved seats.
He submitted the over and above reserved seats of women and non-Muslims should go to the SIC as its being accepted political party in the Parliament by the ECP. He informed that after the merger of FATA, the ECP in 2019 allocated three reserved seats to the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa even though it did not win any seat in that province. He added now the ECP has justified its previous judgment by simply saying it was per incuriam.
Justice Athar Minallah said that the ECP was denying its own orders. He questioned whether the notification for the allocation of reserved seats was ever challenged. If not, then how it now can that order is per incuriam. Justice Irfan Saadat stated that BAP had contested election, while the SIC does not have seats in the assemblies.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired that if a political party contests the elections of the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies, but does not win seat in a province then it cannot have right of reserved seats in that Provincial Assembly? He observed that the BAP had seats in the National Assembly and other provinces, except KP.
The chief justice asked the SIC’s counsel that whether the Supreme Court is bound by the ECP’s interpretation of a provision or the constitution or law? “We would not take into account the isolated incidents.”
The CJP asked: “Was the Election Commission’s decision regarding reserved seats for the Balochistan Awami Party under the law?” He said suppose if there was no BAP then to whom the reserved seats had gone. “Don’t open the election 2018,” he told the counsel.
Faisal Siddiqui said there was hypocrisy on the part of the Commission. It acted discriminately and unfairly. He told the bench that according to the JUI-F constitution “only adult male and female Muslim can become member of JUI”. He submitted that in the KP Assembly, which has a total of 115 members, the ECP allotted 30 reserved seats to other political parties, and none to SIC.
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi inquired whether the constitution allows that the remaining seats be distributed among the political parties which have won seats in the general election despite their proportional quota of reserved seats has already been allocated.
“Political parties cannot be arbitrarily denied their rightful share of representation,” CJP Isa remarked.
Justice Jamal queried, “Is the Election Commission treating all political entities equally in terms of seat allocation?”
Justice Jamal queried about the potential implications for those individuals who are associated with the PTI but later joined the Sunni Council (SIC). He asked if a candidate contests election on a party ticket but after winning joins another political party then would he not be disqualified under Article 63A of the constitution.
Salman Akram Raja represented PTI Women Wing President Kunwal Shauzeb. “If an independent candidate declares affiliation, they can join it (SIC),” Raja said.
The PTI’s counsel explained that PTI-backed SIC candidates did have any other choice apart from joining SIC. He further noted that whatever precedent ECP set about independents before was their fault.
The court has reserved the verdict and adjourned the hearing.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.