The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) observed that the constitution of Pakistan is very clear on reserved seats and doesn’t need an explanation. Everyone is bound to act upon what the constitution explicitly states. The CJP noted this hearing the Sunni Ittihad Council’s case regarding allotment of reserved seats. The CJP said that the PTI was influencing the Election Commission of Pakistan (EC) that took decision in light of the order of the SC.
Why did not this party conducted party elections when was required to do so under the constitution? Justice Athar Minallahnoted that why 86 members were joining the one-man party? Why did the PTI joined the SIC? asked Justice MinallahResponding to the questions Barrister Salman Akram Raja said that the circumstances required that the PTI should join the SIC and the noted lawyers also advised so. The CJP asked how circumstance could compel one to violate the constitution? Would it make a sense that a traffic signal be violated on the bases that the circumstances were demanding that violation?
Justice Naeem Akhter maintained what were those circumstances and should be explained about. Meanwhile, the SIC’s lawyer pleaded to the court that those seats belong to the SIC and thus be granted to it. In the meantime a woman started taking pictures and the CJP ordered to stop her doing so and be checked immediately what she was using with some green light.
A full-court bench of the SC resumed the hearing today on this case The bench includes CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
It is important to note that members of the PTI were forced to run as independent candidates in the February national elections after the SC ruled that the party’s internal elections were flawed. As a result, the PTI candidates were not allowed to use the party’s symbol- cricket bat – during their election.
The PTI-backed candidates won the most seats in the National Assembly, thus emerged as the single largest bloc. However, without electoral identity, they chose to join the SIC. Thereserved seats were allocated to different political parties in proportion to the number of general seats each party wins during elections.
The ECP earlier told the SC that the SIC violative of articles 17, 20 & 25 of the Constitution and the party is not entitled to any reserved seats for women and in particular for non-Muslims.“Article 3, Chapter 1, of the Constitution of the SIC restricts membership of the SIC to only adult Muslims, and places further three other conditions of a like nature to membership.The ECP earlier submitted this to the top court.
The ECP deprived the PTI of its election symbol in view of irregularities in its intra-party polls. The SC on January 13 upheld the ECP order, forcing the PTI candidates to contest the February 8 general elections as independents. These candidates joined the SIC after the announcement of official election results. The SIC later sought reserved seats in the parliament and provincial assemblies in proportion to its general seats. The ECP on March 1 refused to allot these reserved seats to the SIC.
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on March 25 also upheld the ECP order, prompting the SIC to approach the apex court. In its reply, the ECP stated that the SIC is clearly not eligible for reserved seats for women and non-Muslims on account of its not being a “political party” within the meaning of Article 51(6)(d), 56(6)(e) and 106(3)(c) of the Constitution. A “political party” within the contemplation of Articles 51(6)(d), 51(6)(e) and 106(3)(c) is an entity which is “enlisted” as a political party under the Elections Act, 2017. “Secondly, it applied for and was allotted a common election symbol to field its “party affiliation certificate” holders to contest on general seats in a general election and thirdly, it fielded one or more candidates to contest on a general seat in a general election.
Responding to the query of the CJP, Barrister Salman Akram Raja said that it was not mandatory for a political party to take part in lection. The CJP noted that how a party could be a political party without takin part in elections. IT is important to note that matter of the reserved seats holds so much important both for the opposition and the ruling coalition. The allotment of these members on reserved seats could prove to be game changer and weak ones strength and could grant strength to the other.
This is so much important in a sense that any legislation or constitutional amendment by the government would depend on it. The importance of the court’s decision could prove a matter of life for this government that is desirous of enhancing the service tenure of the chief justice.
(By Rana Kashif)
