Both the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court—the former seeking a review of the apex court’s July 12 ruling in the reserved seats case and the latter against retrospective amendments to the Elections Act 2017.
A day earlier, the National Assembly and the Senate had approved the Elections (Second Amendment) Bill, 2024, with the legislation to become law after approval of President Asif Ali Zardari. Ahead of and after the voting, PTI lawmakers in both Houses opposed the law, declaring it an “attack” on the Supreme Court and an attempt to negate its ruling in the reserved seats case.
In its petition under Article 184(3), moved before the president signed the bill into law, the PTI urged the court to set it aside. Moved by PTI Chairman Gohar Ali Khan through his counsel Salman Akram Raja, the plea asked the court to bar the ECP from allocating any seats for women and non-Muslims to other parties until the conclusion of the case. Rather, it said, these reserved seats should be allocated to PTI candidates in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling of July 12.
The petition argued that past and closed transactions in terms of the Constitution and the Elections Act prior to the enactment of the amendment cannot be undone through its retrospective effect. It further contended that Section 3 of the Elections Act sought to add restrictions in violation of the Constitution with respect to the submission of lists of candidates for reserved seats under articles 51 and 106 of the Constitution. It maintained that the apex court’s recognition of the PTI as a political party eligible for reserved seats could not be overridden by the new amendment.
According to the plea, a returned candidate who was declared independent by the ECP and forced to join a different political party could not now be prevented from declaring his affiliation to their original political party.
ECP’s petition
Meanwhile, the ECP has filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s reserved seats judgment, arguing the ruling granted relief to a political party—the PTI—that was not even party to the case.
The petition has alleged that the Supreme Court presumed certain facts that were neither established nor substantiated during proceedings or by admitted facts on record. Referring to the 80 returned candidates who contested the Feb. 8 elections as independents, it said they had subsequently joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). The SIC, it said, was not eligible for reserved seats, as it had not submitted any list of candidates for reserved seats for women and minorities.
Stressing that the independent-returned candidates had joined the SIC despite being aware of all facts, it added: “Thus the court cannot presume otherwise.”
The petition further noted that the apex court presumed that of the 80 independent candidates, 41 had no choice but to remain unaffiliated and had sought to remedy the same by retrospectively declaring a party affiliation. The ECP said this presumption found no basis in the pleadings, especially since 39 independent candidates had, in some manner, declared a party affiliation. The July 12 judgement, it argued, was passed without considering that such directions discriminated in favor of a single political party by extending concessions and relaxing certain articles of the Constitution.
Such a relief, argued the ECP’s petition, violated Article 25 of the Constitution as all members must be treated equally and in accordance with law. The rights afforded under Article 17 to the PTI cannot be held paramount to those of the SIC, it argued, adding the Supreme Court had created an avenue without any sanction in the law and the Constitution to deliver independent candidates into a political party.
The ECP’s petition is the third such review plea; earlier both the PMLN and the PPPP had filed similar but separate petitions against the July 12 judgement, questioning its basis in existing law.