The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench has observed that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) is not entitled to reserved seats, questioning how independents can join a political party that is not part of Parliament. During a live-streamed hearing on the reserved seats case, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan led an 11-member constitutional bench that heard arguments on whether the SIC could claim reserved seats after the inclusion of independent candidates.
The court remarked that while independents can join a party represented in Parliament, it is constitutionally unsound for them to join one that did not participate in the elections. “How can independent candidates join a party not present in Parliament?” questioned Justice Musarrat Hilali. “Did Sunni Ittehad Council even contest the elections?” The bench repeatedly questioned how SIC could lay claim to reserved seats, given that it did not contest the 2024 general elections and had no electoral presence in Parliament.
Representing the de-notified women MNAs, senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the SIC’s appeal had been unanimously dismissed and the elected members on reserved seats were de-notified without receiving any formal notice. Justice Hilali reminded the court that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s notification had earlier been declared null and void. “This case concerns proportional representation. Reserved seats are allocated based on party performance in elections,” she stated.
Khan contended that the Supreme Court’s previous ruling had made no reference to Article 225 of the Constitution, which bars challenges to election matters outside the election tribunals. However, the bench questioned the applicability of Article 225 in a case that concerns proportional representation rather than a direct election. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, later during the hearing, said unequivocally that the Sunni Ittehad Council is not eligible for reserved seats.
The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow (Tuesday), with the court directing the SIC’s counsel to present arguments in the next session.At the heart of the dispute is a July 12, 2024, Supreme Court order that, if fully implemented, would see the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) emerge as the single largest party. The July 12, 2024 order supported by eight out of 13 judges, declared 39 out of 80 contested MNAs as returned candidates of the PTI. This ruling, if enforced, would significantly bolster PTI’s parliamentary strength.
However, implementation has been stalled, with the National Assembly yet to act and the ECP raising objections. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have all filed review petitions against the Supreme Court’s order. The Supreme Court’s detailed verdict in the reserved seats case on September 23, authored by senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, was particularly critical of the ECP.
The court observed that the ECP’s “numerous unlawful acts and omissions” had “caused confusion and prejudice to PTI, its candidates and the electorate who voted for PTI.” The ECP was further castigated for failing to fulfil its “role as a guarantor institution and impartial steward” of electoral processes.
The judiciary did not shy away from reiterating its stance. On September 14, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a clarification, reprimanding the ECP for its non-compliance with the July 12 ruling.