The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Friday dismissed the petitions filed by the PTI in the reserved seats case, declaring that the party will not be eligible for them in the national and provincial assemblies.
The verdict came as an 11-member bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed the hearing of the reserved seats case today. However, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself. The bench previously had 13 members, but Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi had declared the applications inadmissible and were not part of the subsequent proceedings, with the CB head judge noting they had stepped back voluntarily.
Among the remaining 10 members, the review petitions were accepted by a majority of seven judges, including Justices Aminuddin Khan, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi. The judges who rejected the petitions today included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
As part of the verdict, the SC upheld the Peshawar High Court’s March 2024 decision and set aside its own July 2024 ruling. As a result, the PTI’s petitions were dismissed, rendering the party ineligible for the 39 reserved seats.
“For detailed reasons to be recorded later, by majority of seven, all civil review petitions are allowed and the impugned majority judgment dated July 12, 2024, is set aside,” the short order of today’s verdict, seen by Dawn.com, noted.
“As a consequence thereof, Civil Appeals number 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court is restored.”
Justice Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats, but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of the remaining 41 seats.
The court instructed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to examine and consider the nomination and declaration appers, as well as any other relevant documents, of all 80 returned candidates “by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats”.
The ECP has 15 days from receiving the copy of the short order to carry out the court’s instructions.
‘Funeral of constitutional, judicial traditions, and justice’
Reacting to the verdict in a post on X, the PTI termed the decision “the funeral of constitutional, judicial traditions, and justice.”
PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Khan said he was disappointed by the “injustice and the violation of the Constitution.”
“I’m disappointed. This is a huge injustice. For the PTI, it seems that the shadow of Qazi Faez Esa still lurks in the Supreme Court,” he said while speaking to Geo News.
“The right that has been snatched from us is a huge injustice. The framers of the Constitution could not have imagined that a party would get more seats than it won.”
He said the PTI deserved to receive 78 reserved seats, including 66 for women and 11 for non-Muslims. “They belong to the PTI, and it is their right,” he exclaimed.
Gohar went on to say that the PTI contested elections from across the country and joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) as per the affidavit by the ECP for an independent candidate to join a political party.
“There is no further legal recourse, but we will protest the decision in the assemblies and all forums against this injustice,” he said.
PTI leader Salman Akram Raja also criticised the verdict in a post on X, stating that the party contested the election and received votes “only because we were contesting under Imran Khan’s banner”.
“To deny the existence of PTI is to deny the people their voice,” he wrote.
PHC 2024 decision
In March 2024, the PHC had dismissed the SIC’s petition challenging the election regulator’s decision to reject the party allocation of reserved women and minority seats.
In a 4-1 verdict, the electoral watchdog ruled that the SIC was not entitled to claim quota for reserved seats “due to having non-curable legal defects and violation of a mandatory provision of submission of party list for reserved seats, which is the requirement of law”.
The SIC — joined by PTI-backed independents who won the elections sans their electoral symbol — had filed the petition through its chairman, Sahibzada Muhammad Hamid Raza, seeking directives of the court for the ECP to allocate reserved seats to the council based on their strength in the national and provincial assemblies.
The commission had also decided to distribute the seats among other parliamentary parties, with the PML-N and the PPP becoming major beneficiaries. The decision was challenged by the PTI in the top court.
On July 13, the apex court, in a unique majority verdict, declared the PTI eligible to receive reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the national and provincial assemblies, giving it a new lease of life in the legislature by declaring it to be a parliamentary party.
However, the ruling was not implemented by the National Assembly, while the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had raised some objections. The review petitions against the SC order had been filed by the PML-N, the PPP and the ECP.
Today’s hearing
Earlier in the day, as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the review petitions in the reserved seats case, Justice Panhwar recused himself from the bench after SIC counsel Hamid Khan raised an objection.
“Hamid Khan objected to judges who joined the Supreme Court after the 26th Amendment being part of the bench,” Justice Panhwar said, adding that he himself was among those judges.
“Public trust in the judiciary is crucial,” he remarked. “It is important that no party questions the composition of the bench. Given these objections, I cannot remain part of this bench.”
Hamid responded by saying he appreciated the recusal, prompting a stern exchange. Justice Aminuddin remarked, “There is no need for appreciation. This is the result of your conduct.”
Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi added, “We’re listening to you out of respect. Otherwise, we were not bound to do so. Don’t misuse the opportunity you’ve been given.”
Following Justice Panhwar’s withdrawal, SIC’s counsel raised a fresh objection — this time to the constitution of the 10-member bench itself.
Justice Mandokhail questioned the legal basis for the objection, asserting that the 10-member bench would continue hearing the case.
When asked to clarify, Hamid stated, “I object to a 12-member bench reviewing the decision of a 13-member bench.”
Justice Aminuddin dismissed the objection and directed him to proceed with his arguments.