The Supreme Court of Pakistan admitted on Monday for hearing the revision requests filed against its previous verdict which had granted seats reserved in Pakistan Tehreek-E-insaf (PTI).
The court issued opinions to all the parties concerned while the procedure was marked by in -depth issues and net remarks of the bench, reported Express News.
A 13 -member bench, led by Judge Amicin Khan, chaired the hearing. He understood the judges Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Musarrat Hilali, Hashim Kakar, Shahid Bilal, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq and Baqar Najafi.
During the hearing, the lawyer for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Haris Azmat, argued that the reserved seats had been allocated to a part that was not even a defendant in the initial case. Judge Ayesha at the end that this question had already been addressed in the previous decision of the Court, questioning the reasons for the revision.
Judge Mandokhail noted that the bench had both the orders of the return agents and the decision of the electoral commission before the initial case. Responding to the argument of Azmat according to which PTI did not dispute these orders, he asked: “Should the nation bear the consequences of the legal error of a party?”
Judge Ayesha stressed that the initial judgment was based on a complete hearing of all the arguments. The Abbasi judge criticized the petitioners for repeating their original arguments without presenting valid reasons for revision. “You do not identify any error in the verdict,” he said.
Asked about the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision, Azmat said he was not aware, which prompted judge Malik to question the enforceable nature of judicial decisions.
The lawyer for the electoral commission, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, admitted partial respect for the verdict. Judge Mandokhail expressed his concern about the selective implementation, resulting in a severe analogy: “If the Supreme Court imposes a death sentence, would partial implementation mean the flowing node but not to complete the execution?”
The Abbasi judge also asked if the petitioners intended to inform the court, asking for arguments specifically under article 188, which governs the scope of the examination.
The court also examined the status of the electoral commission in the examination, judge Malik wondering how an institution responsible for carrying out elections could act as a party in the case. She pointed out: “You do not like constitutional interpretation, so you returned with an exam?”
Judge Kakar asked if the committee had respected the entire decision, warning that partial implementation casts doubt on the authority of future judicial decisions. Judge Malik added that ECP cannot “choose” the parties of a verdict to follow.
Mohmand defended the position of the ECP, saying that PTI was not part in the related affairs before the High Court of Peshawar. The Abbasi judge stressed that an outrageous petition against the commission was already pending and that their partial implementation could justify an outrage procedure.
While tensions were showing up, Mohmand accused the bench of forging prematurely opinions, to which judge Malik answered firmly: “Don’t tell me what I should think.”
The hearing was adjourned until 11:30 a.m. the next day. A majority of 11 judges approved revision requests for preliminary audience and issued opinions to the respondents. However, the Ayesha and Abbasi judges dissident.
Judge Ayesha declared the inadmissible examination petitions and said that it would make a detailed note describing its reasoning. The Abbasi judge agreed with her position.
