Supreme Court Judges Rule Against Review Petitions in Reserved Seats Case

ISLAMABAD: During a hearing regarding review petitions submitted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) against a prior Supreme Court decision, two justices of the constitutional bench declared the petitions inadmissible on Tuesday.

These review petitions challenged the Supreme Court’s July 12, 2024, ruling, which had determined Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was eligible for reserved seats.

A 13-member constitutional bench, presided over by Justice Aminuddin Khan, convened at the Supreme Court to deliberate on the review petitions pertaining to the reserved seats matter.

Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Abbasi were the two judges who voted to dismiss the review petitions.

Conversely, 11 justices have served notices to all parties involved in the review petitions.

Additionally, the attorney general of Pakistan has received a notice under Supreme Court Order 27A. Separately, the Supreme Court has initiated contempt proceedings against election authorities for non-compliance with the July 12 judgement.

Justice Ayesha stated her rejection of the review petitions, promising to provide her reasoning subsequently.

Attorneys representing the ECP, PML-N, and PPP highlighted alleged errors in the majority ruling during the proceedings.

In what was seen as a surprise legal success for the opposition, the Supreme Court decreed on July 12, 2024, that the party of Imran Khan, who is currently incarcerated, could be assigned reserved seats.

If this ruling were enforced, PTI could potentially become the largest single party in the National Assembly. However, the ECP has not carried out the verdict, citing objections.

During the session, PML-N’s lawyer, Haris Azmat, contended that reserved seats were being given to a party not even involved in the case.

Justice Ayesha countered that this point was already addressed in the original judgement. She further inquired about the foundation of the review petition.

Azmat stated that PTI had a large contingent of lawyers but did not contest those orders.

Justice Ayesha asserted that the initial decision was reached after thorough consideration of all arguments.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail pointed out that the bench had both the Returning Officer’s (RO) order and the election commission’s decision available to them.

Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the country should suffer for one party’s error and if the Supreme Court should disregard information brought to its attention.

Justice Abbasi observed that the PML-N lawyer was essentially re-arguing the case instead of focusing on specific reasons for the review.

Justice Ayesha questioned whether the initial judgement had been acted upon.

ECP lawyer Sikandar Mohmand claimed that the short decision is the “order of the court.”

He maintained that the court’s ruling favored a party not directly involved in the case, a significant mistake that warrants a reassessment of the decision.

Justice Ayesha pressed the ECP on its implementation of the court’s decision, also asking how the ECP considers itself an affected party in the case.

The ECP’s counsel asked for permission to present the ECP’s perspective, conceding that the court’s decision had only been partially implemented.

Justice Ayesha then questioned if the ECP planned to selectively enforce aspects of the court’s ruling. She suggested that the ECP seemed inclined to implement only what it favored.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the ECP’s stance essentially indicated a refusal to implement the decision.

Justice Mandokhail added that his focus was on upholding the authority of the Supreme Court, not the specific case.

Justice Abbasi noted that a contempt of court petition was also pending due to the non-implementation of the court’s directive. PTI lawyer Salman Akram Raja verified that the contempt petition was scheduled for the day.

Following this, the constitutional bench adjourned the review petitions hearing until Wednesday at 11:30 am.

In their dissenting opinions, Justices Ayesha and Abbasi deemed the review petitions submitted by the PML-N, PPP, and ECP inadmissible and subsequently dismissed them. Justice Ayesha stated her intent to provide detailed reasons for her decision, a sentiment echoed by Justice Abbasi.

Despite the dissenting view, the constitutional bench has issued notices to the PML-N, PPP, and ECP regarding their review petitions.