ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan has dismissed all three objections raised by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) regarding the constitutional bench hearing the reserved seats case. However, the Court has approved a request to broadcast the proceedings live.
An 11-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed hearing the review petitions related to the allocation of reserved seats. Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the affected women candidates from the July 12 verdict, presented detailed arguments against SIC’s objections.
Khan argued that the 1980 Supreme Court Rules no longer apply to the current review petitions after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced the concept of larger constitutional benches for cases involving constitutional interpretation. He emphasized that such benches must now follow the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned which parts of the 1980 rules conflict with the new law. In response, Khan stated that under the new amendment, only constitutional benches can hear review petitions related to constitutional matters, and previous practices are no longer relevant.
Khan also addressed concerns about the number of judges, stating that technically, the bench includes 13 judges, and a majority of at least 7 is required for a binding review decision. He further supported the live telecast of the proceedings, saying it was the Court’s discretion and he had no objection.
During the session, SIC’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqi strongly objected, raising his voice and questioning why SIC was made a party to the case if it had no claim. Justice Aminuddin reprimanded him for his tone, reminding him to maintain courtroom decorum. The bench, however, allowed Siddiqi to present his reply, citing the right to a fair hearing.
Following a short break, the bench returned and unanimously rejected all three objections raised by SIC, including its request to first hear the challenge to the 26th Amendment. The Court also approved live streaming of future hearings and directed the Supreme Court’s IT department to make arrangements. The case has been adjourned until May 26, with a detailed order expected to be issued later.