Supreme Court snatches and divides PTI's reserved seats among ruling parties [Update@post86]

[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

 

[The Bald Eagle]

CB questions PTI's role in seats case​

An 11-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday raised questions about the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) becoming a party to the reserved seats review case.

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer for PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab, that he had joined the proceedings of the main case in the apex court as an intervener, because the PTI was neither the party to the case nor a respondent.

Earlier, in his arguments, Raja presented history of the case before the court. On that Justice Khan said that the bench had a decision before it that needed to be reviewed. He asked Raja to keep his arguments to that decision.

Raja said the deviation from the Constitution started on December 22, 2023, when the Election Commission of Pakistan gave its decision against the intra-party elections of the PTI. On January 13, the Supreme Court upheld the ECP decision, he said.

After that decision, he continued, did some people submit nomination papers in the general elections as independent candidates, because they feared that their papers could be rejected. He cited his own example that he submitted the PTI ticket but the ECP returned it and declared him as an independent.

He also cited the example of the allotment of reserved seats to the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) after 2018 elections. On that Justice Khan raised the question if the BAP got the seats, so the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) should also get the seats.

Raja replied that he was only defending the apex court's decision of July 12, 2024, adding that his point was to inform the court about the circumstances that led the PTI-backed Independent lawmakers to join the SIC.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that there were six people from the PTI in parliament. Justice Khan asked Raja whether those six people sought the reserved seats from the ECP. Raja replied that the ECP did not consider them as PTI's lawmakers.

Raja said that there was a slight difference between the majority decision of eight judges and the dissenting notes of two judges. He added that Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi were among the eight judges who looked at the facts from a broader perspective, while Justice Mandokhel and former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa looked at the facts from a less broad perspective.

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Raja that he was not a party to the main case, rather joined the court proceedings as an intervener — who was neither a party nor a judicial officer. The judge added that Raja's application for becoming a party to the case was never approved.

It seemed, Justice Hassan said, the court was listening to Raja out of courtesy. The judge asked Raja whether he was presenting arguments on the merits of the case. Raja replied that he would answer these questions. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday.


In an earlier hearing held on May 27, Senior Counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had informed the Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that Article 187 of the Constitution — the basis for the July 12, 2024 majority judgement which granted relief to the PTI in the reserved seats case — does not empower the apex court to grant relief to a party that was not before it.

Source: The Express Tribune

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Supreme Court divides PTI's reserved seats among ruling parties​

The Supreme Court has accepted the review petitions of the PTI and Sunni Ittehad Council in the reserved seats case and annulled its earlier decision issued on July 12.

The ruling came through a majority decision by a seven-member bench. With the acceptance of the review petitions, the judgement of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) in the case has been upheld.

The verdict practically deprives the PTI of the reserved seats in national and provincial assemblies, which would now be divided among ruling parties, including the PPP, PML-N and others.

As per an amended part of the decision, Justice Jamal Mandokhel upheld the award of 39 seats to the PTI. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi also partially approved the review petitions.

A detailed judgement will be issued later. The court had earlier today reserved its verdict in the case.

During the hearing, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan argued that all 80 members initially intended to join Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen (MWM). "Had they joined MWM, they would have been entitled to the reserved seats," he said, adding that MWM had already won one seat.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked, "It would have been better if they had consulted you beforehand." The Attorney General noted that if the members had joined MWM, there would have been no issue regarding public representation and this case would not have arisen.

PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab appeared on the rostrum. Justice Aminuddin invited her to present her point of view. Justice Mandokhail questioned, "Why did you join the Sunni Ittehad Council instead of PTI?"

Kanwal Shauzab responded, "Our electoral symbol was withdrawn on December 24."

The Attorney General concluded his arguments, after which the court reserved its decision. Justice Aminuddin said the short order will be announced later today.

Earlier in the day, during the hearing, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself from the 11-member constitutional bench, effectively dissolving the bench.

The court was hearing constitutional and legal arguments regarding the allocation of reserved seats.

A reconstitution of the bench is now expected. Further proceedings in the case will be announced soon.

A major development unfolded at the Supreme Court on Friday during the hearing of the case regarding reserved seats. The 11-member constitutional bench hearing the matter was dissolved after Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself.

Justice Panhwar announced his decision to step down during the court proceedings.

His recusal came in response to objections raised by senior lawyer Hamid Khan, who yesterday questioned the inclusion of judges appointed after the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

Justice Panhwar remarked that his inclusion in the bench was objected to, and he acknowledged his past association with Hamid Khan dating back to 2010. "Your objection deeply hurts me," said Justice Panhwar. "How the objection was raised has compelled me to step aside to uphold the dignity of the court."

Justice Panhwar further noted that lawyers Faisal Siddiqi and Salman Akram Raja had expressed full confidence in the bench.

During the proceedings, members of the bench left the courtroom. Justice Aminuddin Khan asked the participants to wait for ten minutes.

The reconstitution of the bench and further proceedings in the case are now expected in due course.

Source: The Express Tribune

 

[Savak]

The fact this decision has come after Munir's meeting with Trump clearly indicates the later has also signed off on the minus IK formula.

 

[Bewal Express]

Why waste everyone's time with the drama when everyone knew Munir told them last year

 

[Extra_Cover]

Pakistan has successfully gone back in time to late 70s and 80s i.e. start of Zia regime. For the decade under Zia it was said were the darkest times for Pakistan and the country itself would have been on much stronger footing had Zia not taken over during that time.

This is a mirror copy of 70s power grab being seen by everyone. Its very clear and evident that the time Pakistan is under Munir's rule it would only deteriorate as educated / informed lot will be finding ways of leaving this country which would be left in hands of power hungry, law breaking tyrants.

 

[Bewal Express]

The fact this decision has come after Munir's meeting with Trump clearly indicates the later has also signed off on the minus IK formula.

What the Zionists want they get. Munir promised them support against Iran, he promised them rare earth minerals and he promised them that PK would recognise Israel. In return they promised to let him stay on his knees and beg to stay in power.

They can devise any formula they like, but nothing will change the fact that they are hated by PKs. We knew from the moment the coup happened that this would be the outcome. What happened to @Major and others.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Unfortunately for the establishment, their decision to use Billo Bhutto as a spokesman for Pakistan has made them a laughing stock. Even Indians are poking fun at his camp delivery of spoon fed speeches and wobbly double chin.

 

[Bewal Express]

Zionist? Imrans in laws right?

I know you feel an absolute tool after years of denial and tbh, so would I if I supported so many crimes and criminals that have culminated in the end of the PK constitution

IKs in laws( although they arent) arent selling PK, it's you guys that have sold everything and left it at the mercy of the Zionists. I didnt see the Goldsmiths kill PKs by the 100s, open Swiss bank accounts, steal elections and end the constitution. Maybe some honest introspection is required by useful idiots like you.

 

[BouncerGuy]

PTI calls Constitutional Bench verdict ‘highly disappointing’

The verdict delivered by the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) was highly disappointing and a “grave miscarriage of justice”, the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf said on Saturday.

It argued that the verdict on reserved seats for PTI should have been delivered only after deciding the fate of the 26th Amendment, stressing that a nation “plunges into darkness when justice is denied”.

However, PTI leaders made it clear that it would be wishful thinking to believe that the party’s candidates would betray “us by joining any other political group” because they have stood by the party in the face of “oppression and intimidation”.

Gohar Khan, the PTI chairman, addressed a press conference alongside Shibli Faraz, Leader of the Opposition in Senate, and Kanwal Shauzab, who heads the party’s women’s wing.

Gohar Khan recalled that the apex court had ruled in PTI’s favour last year, declaring the party eligible for a share of reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies. “But it is shocking that all of a sudden, a bench was constituted without following the due process solely to overturn the SC’s majority decision through a review petition,” the PTI chairman said. He questioned the urgency of deciding the case, contending that the CB should have delayed the proceedings until the controversy surrounding the 26th Amendment was resolved.

Gohar Khan said the PTI was doing its utmost to unite the nation. “But injustice continues to pursue us as the shadow of (ex-chief justice) Qazi Faez Isa still looms large.” He said attaining justice today had become even more difficult than what it was in the 1990s.

Speaking on the occasion, Shibli Faraz lamented that the Constitution had, in effect, been rewritten. He said that according to the Constitution, general elections were required to be held within 90 days, but they were not conducted within that timeframe.

He added that elections were held only after “the powers that be were satisfied that PTI poses no threat now”.

Mr Faraz said PTI secured a thumping majority across the country even without an election symbol, even though its candidates were “subjected to blackmail”.

He criticised the Election Commission’s role, recalling that Senate elections were not held in KP, even though they were held in Sindh and Punjab.

Kanwal Shauzab said the CB’s verdict was one of the “darkest decisions in Pakistan’s history”, as it not only insulted PTI’s voters and supporters but also trampled the Constitution.

DAWN NEWS