Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked during the Supreme Court hearing on the Sunni Ittehad Council’s reserved seat case that the court will strike down any unconstitutional actions by the Election Commission. He emphasized that the Election Commission is both a trivial institution and subordinate to the Supreme Court.
Justice Ayesha Malik’s Inquiry on BAP’s Reserved Seats
Justice Ayesha Malik wondered how the BAP changed into given reserved seats in 2019, to which the Election Commission’s lawyer spoke back that the selection changed now not consistent with the law. The Supreme Court asked the Election Commission to post the components and documents related to the allocation of reserved seats from 2018.
Full Court Panel and Arguments Presented
A 13-member full court docket led with the aid of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and which includes Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Muneeb Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Athar Minallah, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, heard the case. Lawyers from the Sunni Ittehad Council and the Election Commission supplied their arguments.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail’s Questioning
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked the Election Commission’s lawyer, Sikandar Bashir, to identify the mistake and who made it. Bashir explained that in the nomination papers, a blank space indicated an independent candidate and that PTI issued Form 66 on December 22 and the party affiliation certificate on January 13. The PTI should have attached the party affiliation certificate with the nomination papers.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s Inquiry
Justice Muneeb Akhtar wondered if the certificates were invalid because PTI’s chairman had not been elected at the time. Bashir confirmed this, stating that Hamid Raza, who was affiliated with the Sunni Ittehad Council, should have issued himself a ticket as the council chairman.
Justice Mandokhail’s Remarks on Certificates
Justice Mandokhail remarked that Hamid Raza should have submitted the Sunni Ittehad Council’s certificate, not an independent one. Bashir admitted that Raza’s nomination papers did not declare him an independent candidate. Bashir detailed the timeline of the decisions and responses from various courts and the Election Commission, highlighting the inconsistencies.
Chief Justice Isa’s Comments on PTI’s Intra-Party Elections
Chief Justice Isa stated that the PTI had repeatedly requested time for intra-party elections and that the Election Commission should have addressed this earlier. Justice Akhtar commented that the question was whether the elections were valid. Chief Justice Isa acknowledged that despite being given a year, PTI failed to hold intra-party elections.
Justice Mandokhail’s Emphasis on Party Tickets
Justice Mandokhail emphasized that a candidate is considered independent without the primary issue of a party ticket. Bashir agreed. Mandokhail stated that Hamid Raza should have provided the Sunni Ittehad Council’s certificate. Bashir concluded his arguments, and Justice Mandokhail called Barrister Gohar to clarify discrepancies in previous statements about PTI’s declarations and certificates.
Justice Mansoor Shah’s Questions on Nomination Papers
Justice Mansoor Shah questioned why candidates would submit multiple forms. Whether PTI’s candidates had submitted independent and party nomination papers. Gohar explained the submission process, but Justice Shah insisted on clarifying the electoral rules.
Discussions on Election Commission’s Decisions and BAP’s Reserved Seats
During the hearing, discussions also took place about the correctness of the Election Commission’s decisions. The involvement of independent candidates and the allocation of reserved seats to the BAP. The arguments highlighted inconsistencies in the Commission’s decisions over time.
The court requested the Election Commission’s formula and documents related to the allocation of reserved seats from 2018 and 2024 and adjourned the hearing until 11:30 AM the next day.
