• List of revised causes excludes Judges Ayesha Malik, Aqeel Abbasi, the strength of the bank reduced to 11 members
• Both judges question the legal motives of ECP to seek a review
• The lawyer argues the verdict of July 12 granted relief to a ‘non -partisure’
• Constitutional Bank Issuetas to respondents, seeks the commission’s response to PTI’s contempt request
Islamabad: In a movement that left at least two visibly baffled judges, the Constitutional Bank of 13 Judges (CB) of the Supreme Court issued on Tuesday notices to the respondents about requests that sought to visit the verdict of July 12, 2024 that allocated seats reserved for the PTI.
However, Judge Ayesha A. Malik and Judge Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi insisted that the president Judge, Judge Aminuddin Khan, formally registered his opposition to the issuance of notices to the respondents, since they had dismissed the review requests, which had been presented by the PML-N, PPP and the Pakistan Elections Commission (ECP).
The two judges indicated that they would then provide separate reasoning for their position.
Although the hearing was suspended until Wednesday, a list of revised causes issued later a day showed that Judge Ayesha and Judge Aqeel would no longer be part of the largest bank.
Concently, The Strength of the Constitutional bench would Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi.
“Since they have dismissed the reviews, there is no occasion for them to remain in the bank now,” a main lawyer observed under anonymity. “They have given a final judgment, so they cannot sit on the bank.”
The Bank also issued notices to the Attorney General (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan under section 27a of the CPC and ordered the ECP to provide an answer on Wednesday about the contempt of the judicial request instituted by the leader of PTI Kanwal Shauzab for not implementing the judgment of July 12. Interestingly, the case of contempt of the court has been eliminated and will not be heard on Wednesday.
After consulting the other judges, Judge Aminuddin began to issue the order amid heated arguments, which surprised the two judges.
In its brief ordination, the Supreme Court, for the majority of eight to five, said that the 41 returned candidates of a total of 80 MNA were and are the returned candidates of the PTI and, therefore, members of the Parliamentary Party of the PTI in the National Assembly for all constitutional and legal purposes.
When the main lawyer Sikandar Basheer Mohmand appeared on behalf of the ECP, Judge Ayesha questioned how the commission was harmed by the judgment of July 12 and if the request for review was maintained without implementing the previous verdict of the court. Judge Aqeel also asked how the ECP was part of the matter.
In response, the lawyer said that the initial hearing before the Supreme Court did not begin as a case of public interest, but as an appeal against the order of the Superior Court of Peshawar, as a result of which the Commission became a necessary part in the case, and added that the ECP had not approached the court on its own.
But Judge Ayesha questioned how the ECP could appear before the Court without first implementing the majority decision of the Supreme Court, especially when the court had already interpreted the decision of the commission regarding PTI in its judgment.
Judge Hashim Kakar also wondered that when the judgment of July 12 had not been implemented, either correctly or incorrectly delivered, what guarantee was that the decision of this bank would be implemented.
However, the lawyer tried to explain that the sentence had been partially implemented, and added that the commission had also submitted additional reasons along with its request for review.
However, Judge Ayesha questioned how the commission could decide which parts of the judgment to implement and which to ignore.
The lawyer replied that the SC, until its judgment of July 12, had granted relief to a part that was not even before the court.
Given this, Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail questioned whether the court was sitting as a forum of appeals, also clarifying that he was not interested in the present case specifically, but was worried about the powers of the Supreme Court. While recognizing respect for the ECP as a constitutional body, Judge Commandkhail expressed its regret for the direction in which the commission was taking the court.
Posted in Dawn, May 7, 2025
