The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Monday adjourned the hearing of the case related to reserved seats in the parliament till May 20.
The eleven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing appeals filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) regarding allocation of reserved seats.
The full bench included Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Musarrat Hilali, Hashim Kakar, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq, and Ali Baqar Najafi.
During the proceedings, senior lawyers Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqi appeared before the court. Hamid Khan informed the bench that he had submitted miscellaneous applications. However, Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the court had not yet received those applications and advised him to check with the advocate-on-record.
Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that two judges had recused themselves after rejecting the applications, and the current eleven-member bench was formed as per their decision.
Addressing Advocate Faisal Siddiqi, Counsel for the Sunni Itihad Council, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked, “Two members decided not to issue notices on their own. Why are you trying to persuade us further? Once judges have objected themselves, what remains?”
Faisal Siddiqi argued that, traditionally, a review petition should be heard by the same bench that delivered the original ruling. “Since the original case was heard by a 13-member bench, it should also hear the review,” he added.
Justice Aminuddin Khan responded that following the 26th Constitutional Amendment, a smaller bench could now hear review petitions. He added that even if the original bench comprised 13 members, an 8- or 9-member constitutional bench could now legally review the case.
Siddiqi argued that the jurisdiction of constitutional benches was case-specific. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail advised him to read Articles 191A, 185, and 188 in conjunction.
Justice Aminuddin Khan noted that Advocate Siddiqi was offering extended arguments only on procedural objections.
Justice Mazhar further stated that all available judges were included in the constitutional bench, and two voluntarily recused themselves. “This bench was formed from the remaining available judges. When the Practice and Procedure Act was challenged, the full court sat, and questions were raised as to who would hear appeals against those judges. Each judge gave their own view at that time.”
Faisal Siddiqi proposed adjourning the case and referring it back to the Judicial Commission, which could appoint two more judges to the bench. Justice Mazhar responded by questioning whether the two judges who had already dismissed the application could sit again. “And if they do, can they review their own decision?” he asked.
Siddiqi replied affirmatively, stating that judges could indeed review their own decisions if they rejoined the bench.
The court then adjourned the hearing on the reserved seats case until 11:30 AM on Tuesday. Faisal Siddiqi is expected to continue his arguments in the next session.