ISLAMABAD – In a landmark move, the Supreme Court of Pakistan live-streamed its proceedings for the first time as an 11-member constitutional bench resumed hearings on the controversial issue of reserved seats. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail strongly stated that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) is not entitled to these seats, triggering intense legal debate inside the courtroom.
Justice Musarrat Hilali raised serious doubts about SIC’s eligibility, pointing out that the party neither contested general elections nor entered Parliament as an elected group. She questioned how independent candidates could join a political party that wasn’t present in the electoral process. Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing SIC, admitted the party did not contest elections, and even its chairman ran independently.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar also stressed that reserved seats are meant to be distributed based on proportional representation of parties that win in the elections. He questioned the applicability of Article 225 in this case, further complicating the legal outlook. Meanwhile, Justice Shahid Bilal questioned whether a party not originally part of the case could rightfully claim reserved seats at all.
Justice Mandokhail also referred to his previous judgment where 39 independents had shown loyalty to PTI, not SIC. He openly asked if he could change his previous ruling, to which Makhdoom Ali Khan responded, “Of course, you can change your opinion.” Justice Hilali added a cultural touch, saying, “A Pathan only has one word,” highlighting the emotional weight of the case.
The SIC has now objected to the current 11-member bench and requested a 13-member panel, including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who authored the original July 12 verdict. They argue that review petitions should be heard only by judges who passed the original decision. The petition has asked the court to refer the bench formation to the Practice and Procedure Committee.
Adding to the controversy, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi stepped down after declaring the petitions inadmissible. Justice Malik later filed a complaint stating her dissenting note was not published on the court’s website, calling the delay unacceptable. The court has adjourned proceedings until tomorrow, when SIC’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqi will present further arguments.