The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Friday dismissed the petitions filed by the PTI in the reserved seats case, declaring that the party will not be eligible for them in the national and provincial assemblies.
The verdict came as an 11-member bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed the hearing of the reserved seats case today. However, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself. The bench previously had 13 members, but Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi had declared the applications [inadmissible][11] and were not part of the subsequent proceedings, with the CB head judge noting they had stepped back voluntarily.
Among the remaining 10 members, the review petitions were accepted by a majority of seven judges, including Justices Aminuddin Khan, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi. The judges who rejected the petitions today included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
As part of the verdict, the SC upheld the Peshawar High Court’s March 2024 decision and set aside its own July 2024 ruling. As a result, the PTI’s petitions were dismissed, rendering the party ineligible for the 39 reserved seats.
“For detailed reasons to be recorded later, by majority of seven, all civil review petitions are allowed and the impugned majority judgment dated July 12, 2024, is set aside,” the short order of verdict noted.
“As a consequence thereof, Civil Appeals number 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court is restored.”
Justice Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats, but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of the remaining 41 seats.
The court instructed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to examine and consider the nomination and declaration papers, as well as any other relevant documents, of all 80 returned candidates “by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats”. The ECP has 15 days from receiving the copy of the short order to carry out the court’s instructions. Reacting to the decision, Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif Friday welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench regarding reserved seats.
In a statement, he congratulated the government’s legal team and appreciated it for the tireless work.
He said the correct interpretation of the law in the decision established the supremacy of the Constitution and law.
He urged the opposition to work together with the government and play its positive role for development and prosperity of the country. app
However, the PTI termed the decision “the funeral of constitutional, judicial traditions, and justice.”
PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Khan said he was disappointed by the “injustice and the violation of the Constitution.”
“I’m disappointed. This is a huge injustice. For the PTI, it seems that the shadow of Qazi Faez Esa still lurks in the Supreme Court,” he said while speaking to Geo News.
“The right that has been snatched from us is a huge injustice. The framers of the Constitution could not have imagined that a party would get more seats than it won.”
He said the PTI deserved to receive 78 reserved seats, including 66 for women and 11 for non-Muslims. “They belong to the PTI, and it is their right,” he exclaimed.
Gohar went on to say that the PTI contested elections from across the country and joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) as per the affidavit by the ECP for an independent candidate to join a political party.
“There is no further legal recourse, but we will protest the decision in the assemblies and all forums against this injustice,” he said.
Earlier in the day, as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the review petitions in the reserved seats case, Justice Panhwar recused himself from the bench after SIC counsel Hamid Khan raised an objection.
“Hamid Khan objected to judges who joined the Supreme Court after the 26th Amendment being part of the bench,” Justice Panhwar said, adding that he himself was among those judges.
“Public trust in the judiciary is crucial,” he remarked. “It is important that no party questions the composition of the bench. Given these objections, I cannot remain part of this bench.”
Hamid responded by saying he appreciated the recusal, prompting a stern exchange. Justice Aminuddin remarked, “There is no need for appreciation. This is the result of your conduct.”
Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi added, “We’re listening to you out of respect. Otherwise, we were not bound to do so. Don’t misuse the opportunity you’ve been given.”
Following Justice Panhwar’s withdrawal, SIC’s counsel raised a fresh objection – this time to the constitution of the 10-member bench itself.
Justice Mandokhail questioned the legal basis for the objection, asserting that the 10-member bench would continue hearing the case.
When asked to clarify, Hamid stated, “I object to a 12-member bench reviewing the decision of a 13-member bench.”
Justice Aminuddin dismissed the objection and directed him to proceed with his arguments.