ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review its order dated 12th July passed in Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) for allocation of reserved seats of women and non-Muslim to it, and prayed that operation of the short order be suspended.
President PML-N Nawaz Sharif on Monday filed a review petition, through Barrister Haris Azmat, against the SC order 12-07-24. The petitioner submitted that the findings of the majority of 8-5 of the 13-member bench of the Supreme Court are beyond the pleadings of the parties, therefore it is liable to be recalled.
He maintained that on 4.3.2024 ECP notified the returned candidates for the reserved seats both in the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies. The SIC challenged that order before the Peshawar High Court (PHC), which unanimously upheld. The SIC then approached the Supreme Court against that PHC verdict.
‘SC verdict on reserved seats should be reviewed’
Haris stated that in all this process, neither Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) nor any of its MNA’s filed any petition or application to become a party to the proceedings. The PTI never claimed any entitlement to the reserved seats, he added.
The entire case pleaded before the ECP, Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court was “Whether SIC was entitled to the reserved seats?”. The case of the SIC was that the reserved seats can only go to SIC and no one else. Hence, the order under review has given findings which were beyond the scope of the ‘lis’ at hand, therefore cannot be sustained.
The petitioner contended that the SIC and PTI are two separate political parties and two separate entities. The Order under Review, it seems has treated them as one party with different names which cannot be permissible under the Law.
The order under review has not taken into account that 80 MNAs had filed their nomination papers as independent candidates and then as independent candidates joined SIC. None has even come forward to state otherwise, therefore, the assumption in the order under review that the said MNAs are PTI candidates is liable to be reviewed.
He mentioned that according to the order there are 41 returned candidates who have not even shown affiliation with PTI even in one of the columns of the list submitted by ECP, the said candidates have been given a 15-day period to join any political party. He submitted that the same is a novel procedure which is in stark contradiction to the constitution, Election Act and the settled jurisprudence.
He described that even the short orders by Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail have held that any candidate who has elected to remain independent or has withdrawn his candidature as PTI candidate cannot be termed as a PTI candidate.
The petitioner stated that all the returned candidates have already joined SIC and hence there is no question of giving them an option of joining PTI that too after many months of the election. It is also against Rule 92 (6) of the Election Rules, 2017 which state that once an independent candidate has joined a political party, there is no option to recall or cancel.
The Constitution in terms of Article 51 (6) (d) and (e) only gives a period of three days to the returned candidates to decide which political party to join. However, in the instant case, the order has given 15 days, which is in contradiction to the constitution. He submitted that no new procedure or process can be adopted which is not provided in the constitution.
The majority order has neither struck/read down Article 51 (6) (d) and (e) of the constitution nor Section 104 of the Election Act read with the Election Rules. In view of the said laws being on the statute books, the order, which is in contradiction to the letter of the law may be recalled.
By carving out a procedure which is not provided under the constitution, the order might have gone into the realm of creating and not just interpreting the constitution which is against the long standing jurisprudence of this Court. It has been stated innumerable times by this Court that “the function of the Court is interpretation, not legislation”.
He maintained that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of the law without deviating from the prescribed procedure. In view of this principle alone, the order under review may be recalled.
The petitioner submitted that the July 12, 24, order is absolutely silent on the main controversies between the parties; Should SIC be granted the reserved seats? Can reserved seats be granted to a political party which has not submitted a party list within the prescribed time given in the Election Programme?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.