The Supreme Court on Monday suspended a Peshawar High Court (PHC) ruling denying the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) reserved seats for women and minorities and accepted for hearing the party’s petition against the verdict.
A three-member bench, led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and comprising Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah, issued the order after hearing a petition against the denial of reserved seats for women and minorities to the SIC, the new home of independent candidates elected with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s support in the Feb. 8 general elections.
In March, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had ruled the SIC was not entitled to claim reserved seats as it had not contested elections, did not qualify as a parliamentary party, and failed to submit any lists for the reserved seats. The electoral body then distributed the reserved seats among other parliamentary parties, with the PMLN and PPP receiving the majority. Subsequently, the PHC had dismissed a SIC plea challenging the ECP decision.
In today’s proceedings, the SIC was represented by Faisal Siddiqui, while the court also summoned Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan. At the outset, Siddiqui recalled that PTI-backed lawmakers-elect had jointed the SCI after the elections. Justice Minallah questioned if the PTI remained a registered political party, with the lawyer replying in the affirmative and Justice Shah observing it had not participated in the elections.
“Within how many days must independent candidates join a party?” questioned Justice Mazhar, with Siddiqui replying within three days of the ECP issuing their victory notification. “If a political party does not have an electoral symbol, will its candidates lose their right to represent [their party]?” questioned Justice Minallah, with the counsel saying a political party becomes a parliamentary party only after contesting elections. Independent lawmakers, he argued, could join any party.
Justice Shah then inquired about the formula under which reserved seats are distributed, questioning if any party could receive more than its share. “Any political party, under any circumstances, cannot get more than its share of reserved seats,” argued Siddiqui. Justice Minallah observed that a political party could only get reserved seats as per the number of general seats it had won, questioning what law allowed excess seats to be distributed beyond a mandate. “We have to protect the public mandate. The real issue is of the public mandate,” he remarked.
Justice Minallah then questioned how a political party couldn’t contest elections without an electoral symbol. Salman Akram Raja, who contested the general elections as a PTI-backed independent, said he asked the same question in court before the polls. “For the first time, a major political party was deprived of its electoral symbol,” observed Justice Minallah, with the court issuing summons for ECP officials.
After a brief recess, the AGP and the ECP director general (law) appeared before the court, with Justice Shah questioning if distributed seats could be reallocated. “The second question is that the reserved seats were distributed so the House is complete. Where is the mistake in this?” he questioned.
To the AGP arguing that no candidate had joined a political party, Justice Shah questioned if “seats belonging to the independent candidates” could be distributed to other parties. “The Constitution of Pakistan also begins in this manner that affairs will be performed according to public aspirations,” he remarked, with the judges also questioning if reserved seats could be “redistributed in the second stage” and what could be done for reserved seats left unallocated.
Justice Shah again questioned how political parties could get reserved seats beyond their due share. “Can other remaining reserved seats also be distributed to them? Is there anything like that in the law?” he asked. “If there is nothing as such in the law, then isn’t doing so against the constitutional scheme?” he asked the AGP.
Justice Mazhar then questioned if the ECP had given the unallocated reserved seats to other political parties under its suo motu powers. “What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly either,” remarked Justice Minallah, questioning if it were right to ignore a party’s mandate indirectly.
The ECP official argued that a political party was defined as any party that had contested elections on an electoral symbol, adding it must also be registered. Justice Minallah observed the ECP’s allocation of reserved seats to other political parties did not have any reasonable grounds.
“We are accepting the case for hearing,” Justice Shah said, adding that the apex court was also suspending the earlier ECP and PHC decisions. However, he added, this was limited to the allocation of the remaining reserved seats and did not apply on seats already allocated. The court also barred lawmakers appointed on contested reserved seats from voting on any legislation until a final ruling in the present case. The apex court would resume hearing the case from June 3.