Islamabad:
A constitutional bench of 11 members (CB) of the Supreme Court, led by Judge Amicin Khan, raised questions about Pakistan Tehreek-E-insaf (PTI) on Wednesday to the case of reserved seats.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Salman Akram, the lawyer for the PTI chief Kanwal Shauzab, whom he had joined the main case procedure before the Apex Court as a speaker, because the PTI was neither the party in the case nor the respondent.
Earlier, in his arguments, Raja presented the history of the case in court. On this judge, Khan said that the bench had a decision before it which was to be revised. He asked Raja to keep his arguments for this decision.
Raja said that the Deviation of the Constitution began on December 22, 2023, when the Pakistan Electoral Commission issued its decision against the ITFI intra-party elections. On January 13, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the PCE, he said.
After this decision, he continued, some people submitted candidacy documents to the general elections as independent candidates, because they feared that their papers were rejected. He cited his own example according to which he submitted the PTI ticket, but the ECP returned and declared him as independent.
He also cited the example of the allocation of seats reserved for the Balutchistan Awami Party (BAP) after the 2018 elections. On this judge, Khan raised the question of whether the BAP obtained the seats, so that the Sunni ITTEHAD (SIC) council should also obtain the seats.
Raja replied that he only defended the decision of the Supreme Court of July 12, 2024, adding that his point was to inform the Court of circumstances which led the independent legislators supported by the PTI to join the SIC.
Judge Mandokhail pointed out that there were six people from the PTI in Parliament. Judge Khan asked Raja if these six people were looking for the seats reserved for ECP. Raja replied that the ECP did not consider them as the legislators of PTI.
Raja said there was a slight difference between the majority decision of eight judges and the dissident notes of two judges. He added that judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar and judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi was among the eight judges who examined the facts from a broader point of view, while judge Mandokhel and former chief judge Qazi Faez Isa examined the facts of a broader perspective.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Raja that he was not a party to the main case, had rather joined the legal proceedings as an intervener – who was neither a party nor a judicial officer. The judge added that Raja’s request to become a party to the case has never been approved.
It seemed that judge Hassan said the court listened to Raja out of courtesy. The judge asked Raja if he presented arguments on the bottom of the case. Raja replied that he would answer these questions. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday.
During a previous hearing held on May 27, the main lawyer Makhdomo Ali Khan had informed the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that article 187 of the Constitution – the basis of the case of the seats of July 12, 2024 which granted a reparation to the PTI which was not before.
