Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail observed Thursday that the former president of the Pakistan Supreme Court Qazi Faez Isa and the CJP Yahya Afridi in their separated judgments last year had recognized the right of the PTI to seating reserved as a parliamentary party.
The comments occurred when the Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court (CB) heard the supplications of revision against a ruling that had declared the eligible PTI for reserved seats.
In his brief welcome order of July 12, 2024, eight of 13 judges ruled that 39 of an 80 -mna list were and are the returned candidates of the PTI, which establishes it to emerge as the largest party in the National Assembly.
However, the ruling had not been implemented by the National Assembly, while the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP) had raised some objections. Review requests against order SC had been presented by the PML-N, the PPP and the ECP.
A CB of 11 members led by Judge Aminuddin Khan resumed the hearing today after Judges Ayesha A. Malik and Aqed Ahmed Abbasi had dismissed the review requests on the first day of hearings.
The other 10 members of the bank were Judges Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer and Ali Najafi.
The Live CB transmitted its procedures on the SC YouTube channel, after accepting the SIC request for it last week.
The lawyer Faisal Siddiqui appeared today before the Court on behalf of the Sunita Ittehad (sic) Council, to which the independent candidates backed by PTI had joined during the 2024 elections after the PTI electoral symbol was revoked.
Sikandar Bashir Mohmand was present as the ECP lawyer, while lawyer Haris Azmat appeared as PML-N lawyer.
During the hearing, Judge Commandkhail pointed out that he and ex-CJP Isa, in his minority trial, had agreed with the majority verdict of eight judges to the extent of 39 candidates. He also said that the CJP Yahya Afridi had also recognized the right of the PTI to the reserved seats.
Despite the division of 8-5, 11 of the 13 judges had declared the PTI a parliamentary party. In his independent order, Judge Aphridi had ordered the ECP to provide an opportunity to interested parties on the reserved seats and, if necessary, to visit their previous decision within seven days.
Judge Mazhar, part of the original majority verdict, also pointed out: “The minority judges recognized the PTI for the same reasons as the majority judges.”
The procedures were postponed until 11:30 am on June 16, with Siddiqi ready to continue their arguments.
During the previous hearings, the CB had questioned the position of the sic in the case, noting that the original order had assigned seats to the PTI and not the SIC. The main lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, lawyer for women legislator affected by the SC ruling, has also disputed the legality of that verdict.
Initially, a full CB of 13 members led by Judge Aminuddin took the replicas of review on May 6. However, Judges Ayesha and Abbasi declared that the requests are inadmissible and were not part of the subsequent procedures, with the chief judge of CB who noticed that they had voluntarily retreated.
Judge Ayesha had formally complained to the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi about his dissident order that did not go up to the SC website.
In his opinion, he had criticized ECP for not implementing the previous order, observing that “not only would the authority of the Supreme Court undermine, but also erode the fundamental values of democracy itself.”
The audience
At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Commandkhail asked PML-N’s lawyer if he had approached the point that the candidates of a party were declared independent in his written response. Azmat replied that he had tried to answer the question.
Siddiqi argued that the rules of the Supreme Court had not been considered in some requests and requested that it be dismissed.
He said he would answer the question of why the president of SIC, Hamid Raza, played the elections independently, in which Judge Commandkhail pointed out that the issue of “who played how” was not before the court.
However, Judge Hilali, referring to his questions in previous audiences, commented: “He had some questions, which did not get a satisfactory answer.”
He pointed out that the SIC had existed as a political party since 2013, wondering how “a parliamentary party” was made, despite the fact that race did not challenge the surveys of its party.
“It was stated in the case of reserved seats that the vote is a fundamental right, although the vote is not a fundamental right,” said Judge Hilali.
Here, Judge Commandkhail recalled that he and former CJP judge Qazi Faez Isa, in his minority trial, agreed with the verdict of the majority of eight judges to the extent of 39 candidates.
“Judge Yahya Afridi also said that the PTI was entitled to reserved seats,” added the judge. In his independent order, Judge Aphridi had ordered the ECP to provide an opportunity to interested parties on the reserved seats and, if necessary, to visit their previous decision within seven days.
Judge Mazhar, a part of the original majority verdict, observed: “The minority judges recognized the PTI for the same reasons as the majority judges.”
Siddiqi then questioned how review requests could depend on minority decisions, noting that the judgments themselves had “accepted the PTI as part.”
Judge Panhwar said: “The verdict challenged by those who brought the review requests had not even read before us.”
Judge Mazhar questioned if the judges could decide outside the constitutional reach. “Even if public aspiration and democracy can judges rewrite the Constitution?”
Siddiqi replied that the Constitution had not been rewritten, in which Judge Hilali observed that it had been. “The three -day period extended to 15 days,” he said, referring to the time awarded to 41 independent candidates to return to present the affiliation of his party.
After the lawyer who affirms that most of the judges were in favor of the PTI obtained the reserved seats, Judge Aminuddin commented: “You are creating problems for yourself.”
Siddiqi then replied: “We have no problems if the PTI gets the reserved seats or the sic; it is the same.”
The lawyer argued: “Everyone should obtain equal rights. PTI candidates did not deliberately receive their rights.”
Judge Commandkhail commented: “Democracy has been mentioned. Isn’t the democracy that candidates decide on their own? No one can be forced to join another party. Those independent candidates who want to join another party can do so.”
Here, Judge Aminuddin went to Siddiqi, saying: “You still go to the past.” The lawyer replied that the original ruling had not read out loud before the bank, in which Judge Commandkhail asked why he complained when no one had prevented him from reading it.
At one point, Judge Hilali again questioned the role of SIC in the enigma.
Going to Siddiqi, he asked: “Why (sic) did not tell the PTI that” we are not disputing the elections “? The president of SIC should have informed the PTI that he is executing in the elections independently.”
Referring to the dissident order of Judge Aminuddin and Judge Afghan who had denied PTI’s reserved seats, the lawyer declared: “I do not agree with Judge Aminuddin’s trial, but it was a very forceful decision.”
At one point, Judge Mazhar, Judge Hilali and Siddiqi were from one place to another for the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right.
Siddiqi cited articles 17 and 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to affiliation and speech, respectively.
When Judge Hilali said that the vote was not a fundamental right by birth, but created by the statute, Siddiqi explained that there were three types of rights, “natural such as the right to life, given by the statute and the fundamental that can only be removed after a constitutional amendment.”
When the audience was postponed until June 16, Siddiqi said he would want two audiences to complete his arguments.
