ISLAMABAD – The top court has raised a question that whether the Sunni Ittehad Council won or lost the case, how would it benefit the other parties.
“The reserved seats cannot be allocated in a manner that deviates from the principle of proportional representation,” observed the full court bench of the apex court seized with the hearing of the plea moved by Sunni Ittehad Council seeking reserved seats.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa is heading a 13-member full court in the case.
During the proceedings, Sunni Ittehad Council’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that the nomination papers indicated the Chairman’s affiliation with the Sunni Ittehad Council, but due to the absence of the party symbol, the Chairman contested the elections as an independent candidate.
CJP Isa remarked, “You spoke in the air; you cannot make such statements without evidence. Provide the documents,”. To this, Faisal Siddiqui responded, “I will provide the documents, and the Election Commission will also confirm,”.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked lawyer Faisal Siddiqui whether the party ticket was submitted along with the nomination papers. Faisal Siddiqui replied that Hamid Raza was prevented from submitting the party certificate, and the Election Commission forcibly allocated him the symbol of an independent candidate.
The ECP presented the nomination papers of Chairman Sunni Ittehad Council Hamid Raza during the hearing, upon which the Chief Justice directed that copies of Hamid Raza’s nomination papers be provided to all judges.
Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the elected members on reserved seats, argued that the election program was issued under the Election Act and that nomination papers must be submitted before the specified date. The Election Commission would confirm that the Sunni Ittehad Council did not submit the list related to reserved seats.
Justice Mansoor asked Makhdoom Ali Khan when the notification recognizing the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party was issued. Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that the Election Commission could provide a better answer to this question.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked that it was surprising that Salman Akram Raja and Faisal Siddiqui did not mention the Peshawar High Court and only talked about the Election Commission’s decision.
The judges raised questions regarding the Election Commission declaring PTI candidates as independent during the hearing.
Justice Muneeb asked how the Election Commission declared those who identified themselves as PTI candidates in their nomination papers as independent candidates. On what basis did the Election Commission conclude that the candidates were independent and not from Tehreek-e-Insaf?
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the crucial question is on what basis the Election Commission declared the candidates of a political party as independent. Justice Hassan Azhar asked if any candidate stated after submitting nomination papers that they were withdrawing.
Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the Election Commission’s decision to declare the candidates as independent left no choice for the candidates. The main issue is the Election Commission not accepting the nomination papers of the candidates and declaring them independent. If Hamid Raza is proven to be a candidate of the Sunni Ittehad Council, it will become a different matter.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that if someone submits a certificate of a party, it cannot be changed later. If someone switches to another party after receiving a party ticket, it will be considered defection. In my opinion, Article 63A will apply to those who change the party after taking the ticket.
Justice Ayesha asked what benefit other parties will have whether the Sunni Ittehad Council wins or loses its case. Reserved seats cannot be allocated deviating from the principle of proportional representation. Those who obtained additional seats should explain their stance. Clarify the formula for proportional representation already enshrined in the constitution.
The Chief Justice said that the constitution is sacred, and adhering to it is mandatory, not optional. If we talk about history, we should do so comprehensively.
Justice Athar Minallah remarked on the Chief Justice’s comments, stating that even today, the constitution is not being implemented. The impression should not be given that the court is also complicit in this. As the Supreme Court, we have buried our heads in the sand. Everyone is trying to create the impression that we are talking about the past.
One day, we should declare that enough is enough, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the violation of the constitution.
The most crucial petition before the Supreme Court is regarding the elections on February 8, along with cases of missing persons and violations of fundamental rights, which are not political cases.
The Chief Justice responded that we should all acknowledge our mistakes.
