The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has rejected the request to enforce its decision regarding the allocation of seats to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for 39 members of the National Assembly.
During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked, “Has the Election Commission declared all 39 members as belonging to PTI?” Advocate Faisal Siddiqi argued that PTI was not allotted seats proportionally with respect to the 39 members.
The Director General (Law) of the Election Commission stated that seats would be allotted based on an overall formula. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi questioned, “Have these seats already been allotted to others?” To this, the DG Law replied, “No, seats have not been given to anyone yet.”
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that based on the ratio of 80 seats, around 22 or 23 reserved seats should be allocated. Justice Mazhar further questioned, “If 39 members have been declared as part of PTI, then why haven’t the reserved seats been allocated according to that proportion?”
The Election Commission’s lawyer argued that Parliament had enacted a law stating that once a political affiliation is declared in the nomination papers, it cannot be changed. He added that the law was applied retrospectively, and a review petition on the matter is still pending.
Later, the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench formally dismissed the request to enforce its decision regarding the allocation of reserved seats to PTI for the 39 assembly members.
Separately, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in the review petitions against the verdict on reserved seats until Wednesday, June 18, after Advocate Faisal Siddiqi, counsel for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), concluded his arguments.
The hearing was conducted by an eleven-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. Continuing his arguments, Advocate Siddiqi emphasized the constitutional and public importance of the case.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Siddiqi what led him to believe that the court’s powers had been curtailed, to which he replied that he never made such a claim.
Justice Hashim Kakar noted that Articles 187 and 175 of the Constitution must be read together. Siddiqi argued that the 26th Constitutional Amendment was not intended for clarification purposes. However, Justice Amin-ud-Din disagreed, stating that neither the amendment nor Article 184(3) was directly relevant to the current case. Siddiqi countered, claiming that the entire case hinges on these constitutional provisions.
Justice Mandokhail reminded the counsel that the court would deal with the matter under the original language of Article 187 and warned that if arguments were not concluded by the end of the day, the court would deem them completed.
Justice Amin-ud-Din noted that no one denied joining SIC and that PTI was effectively under SIC’s control. He added, “You want us to ignore all the facts and grant you relief.”
Justice Mandokhail cited a land dispute case from Balochistan where the court ruled in the government’s favor, highlighting the principle that those declaring themselves independent cannot have their autonomy arbitrarily revoked.
Siddiqi pointed out that the ECP had not issued notifications for SIC’s reserved seats. Justice Mandokhail asked if those seats had been left vacant, to which the ECP replied that notifications were withheld for disputed seats.
Justice Rizvi asked whether the instructions in the majority judgment had been followed. Siddiqi responded that all members had submitted their credentials and party affiliation, and the real question was why the ECP failed to implement the court’s order. He criticized the ECP for both non-compliance and filing a review petition.
Justice Mazhar observed that while 39 members were notified as PTI candidates, the reserved seats were withheld. He questioned whether the reserved seats were allocated proportionately. The ECP’s Director General (Law) said that seat allocation follows a specific formula, and reserved seats cannot be distributed arbitrarily.
Justice Mandokhail acknowledged that all involved were state institutions. “Today I’m sitting here, tomorrow someone else will,” he said. “If something violates the Constitution or the law, does that mean it must still be followed?” Siddiqi replied that unless something is struck down, it must be observed. Justice Mandokhail responded, “Then the ECP has done the same.”
He added, “That doesn’t mean you can come here and attack the Supreme Court while I’m presiding.”
Following this, Advocate Faisal Siddiqi concluded his arguments. The Supreme Court adjourned further proceedings in the reserved seats review case until Wednesday, June 18.