Admitting the review petitions filed against the Supreme Court’s (SC) verdict in the PTI reserved seats case, for the hearing by 11 judges to two, a 13-member constitutional bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday issued notices to the parties and adjourned the hearing until tomorrow, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, however, declared the petitions inadmissible for the hearing.
The bench will also simultaneously hear the contempt of court plea filed for not complying with the apex court’s judgment in the case.
Right at the start of the court proceedings, Haris Azmat, counsel for the PML-N, said that the reserved seats were given to that party, which was not even a party to the case.
Justice Ayesha remarked that this point had been answered in the original decision. “What is the basis for your review plea? Was the SC’s decision implemented?” she questioned.
The PML-N’s lawyer said he could not confirm it.
This irked Justice Ayesha, who said, “What is this? You are standing in the courtroom. And you are not aware of an important fact.”
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked how review pleas could be filed when the original verdict had not been implemented. “You also have to tell us whether the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is not bound to follow the courts’ verdicts,” the judge added.
Justice Abbasi said emphatically that the SC had given the ruling in the light of the constitution. “Please enlighten us on the flaws in the ruling. The points, which you are trying to bring home to us are on our fingertips right from our college days.”
“Will you teach the apex court now?” he questioned.
The ECP’s lawyer, on the occasion, said that it was not the PTI, which had approached the SC for the relief.
Justice Mandokhel told him the question was not that of PTI, but of a candidate who represented his or her constituency, and whose people voted for him or her because he belonged to a particular party.
Justice Hashim Kakar asked the ECP’s lawyer to answer his question in either Yes or No. “Whether the election commission had complied with the SC’s decision.”
The lawyer told him that the ECP had implemented just one paragraph of the verdict.
Infuriated over this reply, Justice Abbasi questioned, “Was it up to the ECP to decide which part of the decision was to be implemented, and which was not?”
He reminded the PML-N’s lawyer that a contempt of court plea was also pending in the court for not complying with the SC’s ruling.
Justice Mandokhel remarked, “Leave this case aside. Will you please tell us where we are heading?”
Tomorrow, he added, if the court sentenced somebody to death, would the court order be implemented partially?
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori