SIC not entitled to reserved seats, remarks Justice Mandokhel

Justice Jamal Mandokhel of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday said that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) was not entitled to the reserved seats, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

During the hearing of the review petitions filed against granting reserved seats to the PTI, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked how the SIC could claim that it was entitled to reserved seats. “How can it be granted reserved seats?”

An eleven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions. 

The judge went on to say that independents could join a political party, which had representation in the parliament. “But how on earth could independents join a party which did not even exist in the parliament?” Justice Musarrat questioned.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, a lawyer, told the bench that as per the SIC’s account, independents had joined it.

Justice Musarrat asked whether the SIC had contested the general elections of February 8, 2024. 

The lawyer replied, “No, the SIC had not contested the elections.”

Justice Shahid Bilal asked whether the PTI was a party to the reserved seats case. “Can a party, which is not a party, be allotted reserved seats?”

Makhdoom replied that certainly the party, which was not a party to the case, could not get reserved seats.    

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the bench also had to look at the role the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had played at that time. “In my opinion, the ECP did not discharge its functions,” the judge said, adding, “Giving or denying reserved seats is one thing while the ECP’s role is another.”

Justice Mandokhel said that after staying awake all night and going through the available record, he found out that only 39 lawmakers had written ‘PTI’ in the box meant for showing the party affiliation.  

Makhdoom said that 41 lawmakers had been given 15 days to join a party of their choice.

Justice Mandokhel said the question was of the people’s right to vote. “If a party has been deprived of its electoral symbol, it does not mean it has ceased to exist,” the judge said, adding, “These are the candidates, not political parties, who contest the elections.”

The electoral symbol, he went on to say, were meant to guide people. “If a party does not have a symbol, this does not mean that it cannot contest the elections.”

He further said that had the independents remained in the PTI rather than joining the SIC, the confusion that existed today might not have existed. “Similarly, there would have been no issues if the SIC had contested the election on its symbol.” 

Makhdoom said that the SC’s majority decision in the reserved seats case was actually a rewriting of the constitution. “The bench could now change its opinion during the review,” the lawyer opined.

Later, the case’s hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.

Reporter: Amanat Gishkori