Islamabad:
Unlike the majority opinion of a complete bench of the Supreme Court, which, on July 12, 2024, ordered the attribution of seats reserved for the PTI, a constitutional bench (CB) examining the order indicates that the PTI is itself to be blamed for not having obtained seats reserved after the general elections February 2024.
While hearing examination petitions in the reserved seats case, the judges wonder why the PTI did not dispute the Electoral Commission for Pakistan Orders (ECP) to declare its independent candidates despite the fact that eminent lawyers of the elections on the PTI ticket.
The judges also systematically defend the ordinance of the Supreme Court of January 13, 2024 to declare illegal the intra-party elections of PTI. The order had led to stripping the party of its electoral symbol
Even the judge, who himself raised serious questions about the conduct of the ECP in his minority point of view, criticizes the “bad legal strategy” of the PTI to obtain reserved seats and the decision of the candidates supported by the PTI to join the Sunni ITTEHAD (SIC) council, which had not disputed the general elections.
A bench of three members led by the former chief judge of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa announced the verdict in the intra -party electoral case on the night of January 13, 2024 – the last date of submission of party symbols during the general elections.
Since May 9, 2023, PTI’s management has accused the government of using coercive tactics to put pressure on its leaders to leave the party. Even during the elections, candidates supported by PTI were not allowed to carry out a campaign. Even the appointment documents of certain candidates were torn off before their submission.
The bench led by judge Qazi Faez Isa had forced the ECP to announce the date of the general elections in consultation with the president. However, there was a serious confrontation between the former CJP and the PTI, because the latter had filed a presidential reference for his withdrawal during his reign.
After the order of January 13, 2024, the PTI had lost the hope that he could obtain a relief from the Supreme Court led by the CJP ISA and after the order of the intra-party electoral cases, Latif Khosa withdrew the petition from the ECP to the ECP not to comply with the SC decision to provide the terms of level game to the PTI to contest the ECP.
Some lawyers wonder why the CJP ISA has not listed the request for revision against its hearing order to eliminate ambiguity, if the ECP has misinterpreted the order by declaring the independent PTI candidates.
They note that if SC could issue two clarifications in the Mubarak Sani case, then why he could not take note of the erroneous interpretation of his important ECP decision, which is a constitutional body.
Constitutional benches (CBS) have also been created before the Supreme Court and the high lessons given the 26th constitutional amendment, which, according to the PTI, was adopted using coercive tactics.
Petitions of revision of the CB hearing against the SC ordinance on July 12, 2024 in the seats case also include judges selected by executive members of the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) after the 26th amendment.
No explanation is given on the reason why the CB committee did not recommend to the JCP for the inclusion of the six judges who were part of the original bench which heard the case of the reserved seats.
Currently, no one on the bench supports the majority decision in the case of reserved seats. Even two signatories of the majority judgment make no remarks in favor of the verdict of July 12.
Judge Ali Baqar Najfi granted a surprise using the term “biased” for the majority decision. Only Salahuddin Panwar judge shows his interest in reading the majority judgment.
Judge Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar said they, as judges, should defend the judgment under revision. However, he urged the SIC Counsel Faisal Siddiqi to highlight important points for determination at this stage.
Judge Amicin Khan, who heads the bench, is consistent in his approach. He systematically raised questions about the recovery given to the PTI by majority judges on July 12, 2024.
Judge Mussarat Hilali, who was a member of the bench which had given the order of January 13, 2024 in the intra-party electoral case, expresses that the majority judgment discussed the judgment of the intra-partner intra-party case of the PTI, which has not been disputed before.
Faisal Siddiqi said that the majority judges had criticized the conduct of the ECP, but they did not question the order of January 13. Siddiqi tries to read the important parties of the July 12 judgment before the bench.
There is very thin chances that the majority judgment will be confirmed by this bench.
There is a criticism according to which the majority judges had surpassing judicial in this case. On the other hand, the lawyers of the PTI say that the majority judges had tried to restore democracy which is the protruding characteristic of the Constitution. The hearing of the case is adjourned until June 16.
If the PTI could not obtain reserved seats, the situation may not change, but if the power parts obtain reserved seats, they will be easily able to obtain two thirds of the majority in Parliament, allowing them to modify the Constitution.
The PPP via Faroo H Naek and Asad Abbasi have filed written answers in the case of reserved seats. The PPP said that the examination of the examination contravenes the established principles of the principles of constitutional interpretation.
By conceiving a procedure not envisaged under the Constitution, the order ventures on the legislative territory, unlike the coherent jurisprudence of this honorable court according to which “the function of the court is interpretation, not the legislation”.
The answer stipulates that this is an established principle of this court only when the law prescribes a specific way and procedure to do something, it must be followed strictly without deviation. This principle alone guarantees the recall of the order being examined, he added.
