The Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict today (Friday) on a significant case concerning the reserved seats of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). A cause list was issued on Thursday in preparation for the announcement.
The case has garnered considerable attention, culminating in a second consultative meeting chaired by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Thursday. The meeting, attended by all 13 judges of the full court, follows extensive deliberations on Wednesday that lasted nearly two hours.
Among the judges present were Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
Conclusive Proceedings
During the proceedings, SIC counsel Faisal Siddiqui argued that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had failed to fulfill its responsibilities. As the court resumed hearing on SIC’s plea regarding reserved seats for women and minorities, Siddiqui confidently stated, “I will take 15 minutes to argue my point.”
Siddiqui contended that the ECP’s claim—that the SIC did not participate in the elections or submit a list of candidates for reserved seats—was flawed. He highlighted the case of the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), which did not win any seats in 2018 but was still allocated three reserved seats. He argued that the ECP’s response to the BAP election was prejudiced and inconsistent with its own documents.
Justice Mandokhail queried whether the ECP decision was in accordance with the Constitution, to which Siddiqui affirmed that it was, at least by the law of 2018. Further, Justice Minallah asked if the ECP decision on BAP’s reserved seats had been challenged, to which Siddiqui responded that the ECP had acted as if the decision did not exist.
Justice Saadat questioned whether the BAP had participated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections, to which Siddiqui confirmed they did but failed to win any seats. Saadat remarked that SIC’s situation differed as they did not participate in the elections, prompting him to request detailed arguments from Siddiqui.
Justice Mandokhail emphasized the distinction between a political party and a parliamentary party, noting that parliamentary decisions are not necessarily bound by political party directives. He illustrated this by pointing out that a parliamentary party decides on matters such as voting for the prime minister, independent of political party mandates.
The courtroom was momentarily lightened when Justice Mandokhail humorously referred to BAP as “father,” causing laughter among those present. He then inquired about the implications for a party that wins seats in some provinces but not others, to which Siddiqui noted BAP’s success in other provinces despite failing in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Chief Justice Isa questioned whether the Supreme Court should take judicial notice of the 2018 election anomaly, a notion Siddiqui supported, advocating for recognition of the ECP’s discriminatory conduct.
As the proceedings wrapped up, it remained to be seen whether the bench would allocate the reserved seats to SIC, to other parties, or refer the issue back to parliament. This marks the eighth hearing on the SIC plea, with ECP, PML-N, PPP, and JUI-F opposing the SIC petition.
Justice Athar Minallah previously remarked on the judiciary’s responsibility to correct ECP’s constitutional missteps, underscoring the significance of the court’s forthcoming decision.
Leave a Reply