Big win for PTI as Supreme Court rules in favour of SIC in reserved seats case

[BouncerGuy]

LOL, so we are not supposed to talk about minorities in a thread about Parliamentary seats reserved for minorities.
The minorities are not even considered stakeholders for the National Assembly seats reserved for minorities. .

Since the law is being questioned and changed, why not simply let minorities choose their representative directly. Isn't that a simple democratic principle?

Reminds me of a conference on Women Affairs Conference in Saudi Arabia with zero women attendance!
View attachment 147201

Why is ECP not giving the minorities the seats they are supposed to get???

Or is it because PTI is involved so they do not care about Minorites now.??

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Why is ECP not giving the minorities the seats they are supposed to get???

Or is it because PTI is involved so they do not care about Minorites now.??

The law itself is unjust without a doubt. From my POV, none of the parties have any claim. Everyone wants their version of the unjust system that helps them grab onto power. PTI is just pissed that ECP is not implemented a highly unjust law for them to seize power.

Let's ignore the political parties, what's shocking for me is that not a single comment from any Pakistani posters has emerged bothered to even question this discriminatory system of reserved seats. Over so many threads, so much cursing and personal attacks with fans of their respective political parties but not one thought about their own fellow Pakistanis legitimate rights.

Just something to note.

 

[BouncerGuy]

SC judges disagree on fate of reviews against reserved seats verdict

In a move that left at least two judges visibly bewildered, the 13-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the respondents on petitions seeking to revisit the July 12, 2024, verdict that allocated reserved seats to the PTI.

However, Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi insisted that the presiding judge, Justice Aminuddin Khan, formally record their opposition to issuance of notices to the respondents, as they had dismissed the review petitions outright — which had been filed by the PML-N, PPP and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP),

The two judges indicated that they would later provide separate reasoning for their stance.

Although the hearing was adjourned until Wednesday, a revised cause list issued later in the day showed that Justice Ayesha and Justice Aqeel would no longer be part of the larger bench.

Consequently, the strength of the Constitutional Bench would be reduced from 13 to 11 members: Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi.

“Since they have dismissed the reviews, there is no occasion for them to remain on the bench now,” observed a senior counsel on condition of anonymity. “They have given a final judgement, so they cannot sit on the bench.”

The bench also issued notices to Attorney General (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan under Section 27A of the CPC and ordered the ECP to furnish a reply by Wednesday on the contempt of court petition instituted by PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab for not implementing the July 12 judgement. Interestingly, the contempt of court case has been delisted and will not be heard on Wednesday.

After consulting the other judges, Justice Aminuddin began dictating the order amid heated arguments, which took the two judges by surprise.

In its July 12 short order, the Supreme Court, by a majority of eight to five, held that the 41 returned candidates out of a total of 80 MNAs were and are the returned candidates of the PTI and, therefore, members of the PTI’s Parliamentary Party in the National Assembly for all constitutional and legal purposes.

When senior counsel Sikandar Basheer Mohmand appeared on behalf of the ECP, Justice Ayesha questioned how the commission was aggrieved by the July 12 judgement and whether the review petition was maintainable without implementing the court’s earlier verdict. Justice Aqeel also inquired how the ECP was a party to the matter.

In response, the counsel pointed out that the initial hearing before the Supreme Court was not initiated as a public interest case but as an appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, as a result of which the commission was made a necessary party in the case, adding that the ECP had not approached the court on its own.

But Justice Ayesha questioned how the ECP could appear before the court without first implementing the majority decision of the Supreme Court, especially when the court had already interpreted the commission’s decision regarding PTI in its judgement.

Justice Hashim Kakar also wondered that when the July 12 judgment — whether delivered rightly or wrongly — had not been implemented, what guarantee was there that the decision of the present bench would be implemented.

The counsel, however, tried to explain that the judgement had been partially implemented, adding that the commission had also submitted additional grounds along with its review petition.

Justice Ayesha, however, questioned how the commission could decide which parts of the judgement to implement and which to disregard.

The counsel responded that the SC, through its July 12 judgement, had granted relief to a party that was not even before the court.

At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether the court was sitting as an appellate forum, also clarifying that he was not interested in the present case specifically but was concerned about the powers of the Supreme Court. While acknowledging respect for the ECP as a constitutional body, Justice Mandokhail expressed regret over the direction in which the commission was taking the court.

DAWN NEWS

 

[BouncerGuy]

PML-N questions SC jurisdiction in reserved seats case

As the 11-judge constitutional bench (CB) resumes on Tuesday (today) hearing on a set of petitions seeking to review the July 12 majority short order of giving reserved seats to the opposition PTI, the ruling PML-N on Monday pleaded that the verdict did not in any way come within the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court or the Constitution.

Moved by senior counsel Haris Azmat on behalf of PML-N, additional grounds contended that from Feb 22, 2024 when various parties were contesting for the reserved seats, PTI never filed any petition either before the Election Commission of Pakistan, Peshawar High Court (PHC) or the Supreme Court for the purpose.

The additional grounds contended that for all intents and purposes, PTI was never made a party to the present review petition as its impleadment application was never allowed.

In view of these undisputed facts, the findings recorded in the detailed reasoning by the majority judges were incorrect and liable to be reviewed, it added.

The SC’s detailed judgement, it pointed out, acknowledged that procedural formalities had been ignored but Article 187 (complete justice) of the Constitution had been relied upon to grant relief to the PTI.

The majority judgement had failed to cite any past precedent to support its opinion, which is against the settled jurisprudence of the apex court, the additional grounds regretted.

It added that detailed reasoning had also lost sight of the fact that they were hearing then an appeal under Article 185(3) against a PHC order and that it was not a petition in public interest filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, therefore, the question to invoke Article 187 did not arise.

Furthermore, the petitioner was not given an opportunity or a right to be heard on the point that reserved seats cannot be granted to the PTI, which was not impleaded as a party before this court nor was a party before the two forums below, the PML-N stated.

These findings were so shocking and surprising that even some of the members of the bench recorded their separate reasoning on the same.

According to the additional grounds, the relief granted to the PTI was self-created and had been carved out by the majority, as none had claimed this relief in the proceedings.

Besides, not only the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) had been denied the relief claimed by it, but all those who had joined the SIC were also taken off for the rest of the tenure of the National and provincial assemblies.

Thus, the PML-N stated, the SIC was kicked out of the assemblies.

The additional grounds explained that the issue was simply the matter of post-general elections directly related to the reserved seats for both women and

non-Muslims on the basis of proportional representation system of political parties’ lists of candidates under Articles 51 and 106 of the Constitution.

The majority’s short order in effect created a new parliamentary party in the National Assembly and three provincial assemblies and since this related to the pre-election process, it is clearly and unequivocally not an issue before the Supreme Court, the PML-N said.

In the process of general elections all events are scheduled and time-bound and the same cannot be reversed, the ruling party highlighted, adding that the PHC order had been set aside by the majority’s short order to the extent that it is inconsistent with the majority’s short order.

This is incomprehensible as none of the rights, which have now been created in favour of the PTI by the majority’s short order, were an issue before the high court, nor had they been adjudicated upon.

The high court had simply dismissed the SIC’s claim to the reserved seats.

It is clear that the superstructure created by the majority’s short order does not in any way come within the ambit of the jurisdiction vested in this court or the Constitution, the additional grounds said.

DAWN NEWS