Judge Salahuddin Panhwar challenged on Friday from the bench hearing the case of the reserved seats.
A bench constituting 11 members (CB) led by judge Aminuddin Khan currently hears the case.
In his courteous order on July 12, 2024, eight judges out of 13 concluded that 39 MNA out of 80 on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, positioning him as the largest party in the National Assembly.
However, the National Assembly has not yet implemented the decision and the electoral commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and ECP submitted examination petitions contesting the decision of the Supreme Court of July 12 of last year.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed the procedure.
The decision comes after objections have been increased concerning his participation in the case.
Judge Panhwar, who is part of a bench of 11 members, has chosen to withdraw from the case to preserve the dignity of the court.
In his remarks, he mentioned that his association spent with key players in the case, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to objections.
He stressed that his challenge was necessary to protect the integrity of the institution. But, he said, that he should not be considered as an admission of the validity of objections.
The decision encountered mixed reactions in the courtroom. Lawyer Hamid Khan welcomed the step of judge Panhwar, but judge Aminuddin Khan said that the situation came from the conduct of the parties involved.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail echoes this feeling, stressing that despite the controversy, judge Panhwar had the chance to speak even when two lawyers of the same party are generally not allowed to discuss the case.
On Thursday, the CB refused the request of one of PTI’s advice to postpone the hearing of the case of seats reserved until August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case daily.
Earlier, the lawyer for the lawyer for PTI Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of July 12, 2024, the majority order of a complete bench of SC.
He referred to the judgment of the SC in the case of the bar of the High Court of the Sindh, which, he said, serves as an example of the way in which the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution.
Read: CB refuses to adjourn the housing of the seats reserved until August
“After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007, several measures were taken, but the Supreme Court said that the unconstitutional emergency, and all the measures taken at its consequences were also canceled.”
“The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency did not hold any legitimate status and that their referral to the judges in office was also declared illegal; the judges withdrawn have been reinstated.”
During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of seats reserved for the general elections of 2013, 2018 and 2024.
He said that the file shows that in the previous elections, the political party which won general seats received approximately the same proportion reserved.
“However, the situation is different during the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] This provided 83% of the general seats was awarded to zero reserve seats, “he said.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja on how the Supreme Court can prevent any politician from challenging the elections independently.
“Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, being the main party leaders, decide to challenge independently, how can we prevent them?” He asked.
Judge Musarrat Hilali said that the loss of an electoral symbol does not mean that the political party’s registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad (sic) council, but the sic was not present in Parliament, she said.
Judge Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in this case, the facts were undisputed.
Judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi said that in the non-party elections in 1985, a political party was called the “AWAM Dost” party. “Did you present such a term [for the PTI for the polls]? “Asked Judge Rizvi.
The lawyer replied that the PTI introduced the term “Kaptaa Ka Sipahi”.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI.
Judge Mandokhail added that it seemed that the 39 members of the Assembly openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensitive. “”
“Either they were more sensible, or they had higher tolerance for pressure,” added Judge Hilali.
Recalling past political events, SIC lawyer Hamid Khan said that the decision in the intra-party electoral case had been announced on the very last day for the allocation of electoral symbols.
“It was a Saturday, a vacation, but the matter was heard until 11 pm that evening. Our candidates continued to wait, wondering what the verdict would be.
At midnight, our electoral symbol was removed from us and the deadline for the allocation of symbols has passed. After that, where did we stay?
He said that the ECP had given the ANP more time even if the ANP had not even held an elections “that we had organized elections, but the ECP had not accepted them.
We have urged him to amend ourselves, if necessary, but that stripped us of our electoral symbol. The same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently, “he said.
Judge Mazhar replied that the ANP had had the opportunity for the first time, when the PTI had already received several years. “Your party constitution has been made more infallible; we can even say that it is better than the others,” he noted
Hamid Khan pointed out that he seemed that the PTI had been punished for writing a better constitution. The CB also rejected Hamid Khan’s request to postpone the case until August. The court will resume a hearing at 9:30 am today.
On January 13, 2024, a SC of three members confirmed the order of December 22, 2023 of the ECP, declaring the intra-parliament polls of the null PTI and no.
Consequently of the verdict of the SC and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the candidates of the PTI had to contest the general elections of February 8, 2024 as independents.
Eighty independent candidates reached the National Assembly and then joined the SIC in an apparent offer to demand seats reserved for women and minorities.
The ECP, however, refused to allocate the headquarters to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in SC.
