Reserved seats case: SC CB accepts KP govt's plea, issues notices to PML-N, PPP & ECP
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in reserved seats case, while accepting the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provincial government's application, issued notices to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Monday, heard the review petitions of PML-N, PPP and the ECP.
The proceeding was live-streamed on the Supreme Court's YouTube channel.
Advocate General KP submitted that the KP government and the KP speaker are the necessary and the proper parties; therefore, they should be impleaded in review petitions against the Supreme Court majority judgment of eight judges. 'The applicants have valuable rights and interests in the matter in issue i.e. allocation of reserved seats, which is directly affected by the consolidated judgment dated 12-07-2024,' he stated.
During the proceeding, Faisal Siddiqui, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued that Article 254 of the constitution seems to apply to his case, as when any act or thing is required by the Constitution to be done within a particular period and it is not done within that period, the doing of the act or thing shall not be invalid or otherwise, ineffective by reason only that it was not done within that period.
Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned how when the PTI-backed independents had already joined the SIC within three days of their victory notification by the ECP. He said Article 254 is not to rectify mistake or error, but it is for coverage of an act or thing that is required to be done in a particular period and is not done within that particular period.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that if the independents have not joined the SIC then you (the SIC) are nobody before the Court. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar said if a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that particular manner. He said when Article 51 says that the independent candidates have to join any political parties within three days of their victory notification then why the majority judgment gave them 15 days to join PTI.
Justice Mandokhail noted that the majority judgment has not declared 41 candidates, out of 80, as members of a political party then it means those 41 candidates are still independents, and the ECP had made a mistake only upto 39 candidates. He said those candidates who in their nomination paper had mentioned that they are independent then the Court has no right to tell them to join such and such party.
Faisal Siddiqui argued that Justice Yahya's judgment said that all the 80 independent candidates' cases be remanded to the Commission. He then contended that the majority judgment stated that the independents could not join the SIC.
Justice Mandokhail corrected him by saying that the independents could not join the SIC only for the purpose of reserved seats, adding how come anyone be barred from joining a political party, then it would be a violation of Article 17(2) of the constitution.
Justice Amin noted that all the 13 judges in their judgments declared that if a political party is not in the Parliament then it is not entitled for the reserved seats. Justice Mandokhail said for reserved seat a political party is required to contest elections and win at least one seat. He then asked from Faisal how many independent candidates had mentioned PTI in their nomination papers?
Justice Mandokhail noted that only 14 candidates, out of 80, described in nomination forms that they are affiliated with PTI and filed the PTI's certificate with their papers before the Commission. 'But we thought the ECP might have misplaced documents of some candidates therefore wrote in judgment that 39 candidates are members of PTI.
Justice Mazhar said that the majority judgment despite the fact that the PTI was not necessary and proper party before the Court granted it relief by invoking Article 254, adding Rule 94 of the Election Rules was struck down by exercising the suo moto jurisdiction.
He further said as the seats were given to PTI by the majority judgment, therefore now the SIC is espousing their (PTI) right. Faisal said; 'I am neither supporting the SIC, nor the PTI, but only support the majority judgment.' He mentioned that the 90 per cent judgment of Justice Mandokhail and ex-CJP Qazi Faez is similar to the majority judgment.
The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
19 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Acting governor be given full access to Governor's House: SHC
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Principal Secretary of the Governor of Sindh to grant full access to the Acting Governor, Syed Awais Qadir Shah, to all official rooms, offices, and chambers within the Governor House. In a constitutional petition, Syed Awais Qadir Shah, who is also the Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, pleaded that despite Governor Sindh Kamran Tessori being abroad, and as per Article 104 of the Constitution, which mandates the Speaker to perform the Governor's functions, he was being denied access to the Governor House and its associated offices. The petitioner's counsels, Barrister Azain Memon and Zubair Ali Butt, argued that the Principal Secretary had repeatedly refused the petitioner and his staff access to the Governor House, despite formal requests; this denial hindered the Acting Governor's ability to perform his official duties. The court was informed that the denial of access was not an isolated incident but had occurred multiple times, including on the day of the hearing. The petitioner sought immediate and unobstructed access to the Governor House and its resources to discharge his duties as Acting Governor. The Advocate General Sindh, Jawad Dero, stated that the Acting Governor was legally entitled to use the Governor House for official business. The court, after interpreting Article 104, concluded that the petitioner could not be denied access to the Governor House to carry out his official duties. The court directed the Principal Secretary to provide immediate access to the Acting Governor to all rooms, offices, and chambers in the Governor House, except the residential portion, to enable him to perform his official duties. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CB mulls SC powers for 'complete justice'
Some members of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court raised a number of questions with regard to the SC's powers to ensure "complete justice". They also asked how non allocations of reserved seats to the PTI could be called a violation of fundamental rights. PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab's counsel Salman Akram Raja on Friday resumed his arguments in support of the SC's July 12 majority order in the reserved seats case before the 11-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan that is hearing review petitions against the verdict. Raja, in his arguments, stated that it is the responsibility of this court to protect fundamental rights and this responsibility is assigned to it by the Constitution. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how Article 187 applies in this case. Article 187(1) gives the Supreme Court the power to issue any order or direction necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it while Article 187(2) gives it the powers as a civil court to enforce its decisions, including issuing orders to any person or authority. Raja replied that he would explain this in detail later. He said the Supreme Court has broader authority and can use Article 187 together with Article 184 to deliver complete justice. Justice Mandokhail asked whether Article 184(3) is used in public interest cases. Salman Akram Raja responded in the affirmative. He said the SC can use Article 184(3) for public interest and fundamental rights. "When there is destruction or crisis, one does not ask which article appliesthen the Supreme Court must step forward and do what is necessary." Justice Mandokhail asked whether, if a constitutional violation occurs but no specific article applies, the SC should still take action. The lawyer said in such a situation, the SC should do whatever is necessary. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Article 199 cannot be read together with Article 187. He remarked that under Article 199, the high court has powers that even the Supreme Court does not possess. Article 199 of the Constitution outlines the writ jurisdiction of the high courts. It empowers high courts to issue various writs (orders) to enforce fundamental rights and ensure lawful conduct by authorities. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked what, in his view, are the limits of the Supreme Court's powers. Justice Jamal Mandokhail said, "My brother judge suggests that there must be some limit to the powers. Does the Supreme Court have unlimited powers in every case?" He then asked whether any constitutional or legal violation occurred in the majority decision of the reserved seats case. Salman Akram Raja said, "There was no overreach in the Supreme Court's decision." Justice Mandokhail remarked that the Constitution itself gives parties the right to join within three days. Justice Aminuddin Khan interjected.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
CB upholds transfer of judges to IHC
In a majority verdict, a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the transfer of three provincial high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), noting that these transfers could not be declared new appointments. However, the majority judges partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority of the transferred judges after examining and vetting their service record "as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis". Two of the judges — Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed — however, declared the notification for transfer of the judges "null, void and of no legal effect" in their minority order. On February 1, the Ministry of Law issued a notification for the transfer of Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Muhammad Asif — respectively from the Lahore High Court, the Sindh High Court and the Balochistan High Court — to the IHC. Following this transfer, endorsed by the president, the IHC issued a new seniority list, ranking Justice Dogar as the senior puisne judge. Five IHC judges filed representations against this seniority list. However, the then IHC chief justice, Aamer Farooq rejected these representations. After elevation of Justice Farooq to the Supreme Court, Justice Dogar was also elevated as the IHC acting chief justice. The IHC judges and some other petitioners including Imran Khan challenged the ministry's notification as well the new seniority list in the Supreme Court, whose five-member CB heard the matter. On Thursday, three members of the CBJustice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar issued their short order, disposing of the petitions. The order noted that the powers of the president under Sub-article (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution for the transfer of a judge and the provisions contained under Article 175A for appointment of judges by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) are two distinct provisions dealing with different situations. "Neither do they overlap nor override each other. The transfer of a judge by the President of Pakistan by means of Article 200 of the Constitution (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment. "Furthermore, the powers of transfer conferred to the President by none other than the framers of the Constitution cannot be questioned on the anvil or ground that if the posts were vacant in the IHC, then why they were not filled up by JCP through fresh appointments. "One more important facet that cannot be lost sight of is that the transfer from one high court to another can only be made within the sanctioned strength, which can only be regarded as a mere transfer and does not amount to raising the sanctioned strength of a particular high court," it said. It noted that if it is presumed that all posts should be filled by the JCP alone through fresh appointments, then such interpretation or state of mind would not only go against the manifest intention of the framers of the Constitution but will also amount to negating or making redundant the substratum and existence of Article 200 of the Constitution. "The article is absolutely not dependent, concomitant, or at the mercy of Article 175A of the Constitution, but is an independent and standalone provision dealing with the transfer of judges of a High Court (permanently or temporarily) and not the appointment of judges, which assignment has been incontrovertibly conferred to the JCP autonomously in terms of Article 175A of the Constitution." The majority judges, however, partially remanded the matter to the president, without upsetting the notification of transfer, to determine the seniority after examining/vetting the service record of the transferred judges, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis. "Till such time that the seniority and nature of transfer (permanent or temporary) of the transferee judges is determined by the President of Pakistan by means of notification/order, Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, already holding the office of Acting Chief Justice of the IHC, will continue to perform as the acting chief CJ," they added. The dissenting note Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed disagreed with the majority order and declared the notification for transfer of the judge null and void. They stated that Clause (2) of Article 200 of the Constitution is subservient to Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and both are interconnected. "According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, while interpreting Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, both the clauses have to be harmonized and, being consistent with each other, have to be read in conjunction with each other for giving effect to both without creating conflict or absurdity" "When Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200 are read in conjunction with each other, it provides that when, in exercise of his discretion, the president transfers a judge from one high court to another, during the period for which he serves as a judge of the high court to which he is transferred, the judge so transferred is entitled to such allowances and privileges, in addition to his salary, as determined by the President." The order said the Attorney General for Pakistan conceded and categorically conveyed to the court on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan that the three Judges have been transferred on permanent basis. It said Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, read in conjunction with each other, do not provide for permanent transfer of a judge from one high court to another and it provides for transfer of a judge a period — on temporary basis. It said the permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC has been made in the wrong exercise of discretion under Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and has offended Article 175A of the Constitution, making it redundant. "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is suffering from concealment of relevant and material facts from the transferee Judges, from the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is also lacking meaningful, purposive and consensus oriented consultation with the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and Hon'ble CJP on all the relevant issues," it added. The minority order noted the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, have no role under the Constitution for appointment or transfer of Judges. "Being subordinate to the executive, the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, cannot override the executive, the judiciary, the constitutional bodies and the constitutional office holders," it added.
