Latest news with #ECP
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Timeline has to be set by court when constitutional timeline is not met: PTI counsel
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI)'s counsel told the Constitutional Bench that the majority judgment in reserved seats has not violated the Constitution by extending time for 41 independents to join the PTI. Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that eight judges of the Supreme Court have dealt with the coercive measure adopted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the PTI candidates had opted to contest elections as independent. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the ECP. The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's You Tube channel. Raja argued that the timeline has to be set by the Court when constitutional timeline is not met. The eight judges considering all the facts and the precedents gave relief to the PTI. Justice Amin inquired when the Court hearing an appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) under Article 185 of the Constitution then can use Article 187. Raja, citing cases of NRO and extension to the Chief of Army Staff, argued that deviation had taken place in the past as well, but the Supreme Court cured them. He said judgment of Justice Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez also recognised the deviation and cured it by declaring that 39 independents are PTI candidates and entitled to reserved seats. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said to extent of 39 independents they had done that on the basis of undisputed facts. Raja contended that the majority judgment had also looked at all the facts and the precedents and came up with two different sets of relief, adding the factual finding cannot be undone. Justice Amin said till date, none of the 80 independents has disputed that he or she has not joined the SIC independently. Justice Mandokhail noted that the elections process starts by filing nomination papers, adding the candidates who have mentioned in their nomination papers independent then why not they accept those nomination papers? At the onset of the proceedings, Raja explained why the PTI candidates contested general elections 2024 as independents. He submitted that after the Supreme Court's judgment on the PTI's intra-party elections, the ECP disallowed party symbol to them, and also derecognised the PTI, adding the ECP in its 9th February order declared all the PTI candidates as independents, including those who had contested on PTI tickets and won the elections. He told that there was great confusion at time as they were told that all the PTI candidates would be treated as independents, 'therefore our returned candidates had joined the SIC, as we had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) before us that a party which had not contested elections and won any seats, but was distributed reserved seats.' 'We had the understanding that ultimately the will of the people would prevail.' Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the BAP had contested the election and secured seats, adding it had some members in the Balochistan provincial assembly and five in the Senate, if not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Raja replied that they had assumption that the BAP party had no seats in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies. Justice Mandokhail said despite various difficulties some of the PTI members contested on the PTI tickets and became MNAs. He questioned when PTI was in the National Assembly then why 80 independent returned candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). He asked whether those six MNAs had claimed reserved seats on their strength? Raja replied that till 11th February 2024, the ECP treated them (the six MNAs) also as independents. 'If six lawmakers had been recognised as PTI then the independent candidates could have joined the PTI instead of the SIC.' Justice Mandokhail then asked Raja that you filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (LHC),praying that you should be declared as PTI candidate instead of independent. Raja informed that his petition was disposed of by a divisional bench of LHC, which included Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, without any order and the matter was remanded to the ECP. 'I came to the Supreme Court against that order I have challenged the vires of Explanation of Rule 94 of The Election Rules, but the SC office returned my petition on 2nd February, 2024 by raising objections.' Justice Mandokhail then asked him whether you or any of the PTI leaders till date has challenged that order? Raja responded: 'We came to the Supreme Court not once, but twice, but our application was returned by the Registrar's Office, and we were told that the Supreme Court will not entertain any election related application.' Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned why not any of the PTI leaders filed any chamber appeal. The case was adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB questions PTI's role in seats case
An 11-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday raised questions about the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) becoming a party to the reserved seats review case. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer for PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab, that he had joined the proceedings of the main case in the apex court as an intervener, because the PTI was neither the party to the case nor a respondent. Earlier, in his arguments, Raja presented history of the case before the court. On that Justice Khan said that the bench had a decision before it that needed to be reviewed. He asked Raja to keep his arguments to that decision. Raja said the deviation from the Constitution started on December 22, 2023, when the Election Commission of Pakistan gave its decision against the intra-party elections of the PTI. On January 13, the Supreme Court upheld the ECP decision, he said. After that decision, he continued, did some people submit nomination papers in the general elections as independent candidates, because they feared that their papers could be rejected. He cited his own example that he submitted the PTI ticket but the ECP returned it and declared him as an independent. He also cited the example of the allotment of reserved seats to the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) after 2018 elections. On that Justice Khan raised the question if the BAP got the seats, so the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) should also get the seats. Raja replied that he was only defending the apex court's decision of July 12, 2024, adding that his point was to inform the court about the circumstances that led the PTI-backed Independent lawmakers to join the SIC. Justice Mandokhail remarked that there were six people from the PTI in parliament. Justice Khan asked Raja whether those six people sought the reserved seats from the ECP. Raja replied that the ECP did not consider them as PTI's lawmakers. Raja said that there was a slight difference between the majority decision of eight judges and the dissenting notes of two judges. He added that Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi were among the eight judges who looked at the facts from a broader perspective, while Justice Mandokhel and former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa looked at the facts from a less broad perspective. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Raja that he was not a party to the main case, rather joined the court proceedings as an intervener — who was neither a party nor a judicial officer. The judge added that Raja's application for becoming a party to the case was never approved. It seemed, Justice Hassan said, the court was listening to Raja out of courtesy. The judge asked Raja whether he was presenting arguments on the merits of the case. Raja replied that he would answer these questions. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday. In an earlier hearing held on May 27, Senior Counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had informed the Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that Article 187 of the Constitution — the basis for the July 12, 2024 majority judgement which granted relief to the PTI in the reserved seats case — does not empower the apex court to grant relief to a party that was not before it.
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Women, minorities: SC CB says 39 reserved seats should have been allocated to PTI
ISLAMABAD: The Constitution Bench observed on Tuesday that the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, to the extent of 39 candidates, as ruled by 11 judges, should have been allocated to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi inquired why the Supreme Court judgment upto 39 candidates has been implemented. He noted that when other political parties in the National and the provincial assemblies have been allocated reserved seats then why those were withheld to the PTI. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) at least to the extent of 39 candidates should have distributed reserved seats to the PTI. Director General (Law) of the Commission, who was present in the Court, submitted that the notification of 39 independents, joining the PTI, has been issued, but the reserved seats could not be distributed, as the review petitions were filed and once the verdict on the petitions passed then the reserved seats would also be allocated. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Faisal Siddiqui argued that 11 judges of a 13-member bench maintained that 39 independents are members of the PTI and it is entitled to the reserved seats. He submitted that on mere technicalities that the PTI was not before the Court or has not filed any application or not expressly impleaded, therefore, the reserved seats cannot be denied to it. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned that those candidates who in their nomination forms wrote that they are independents then how they could be forced to join a particular political party. He said it is not a simple thing because majority of the candidates were not contesting elections for the first time, and were educated people. Justice Amin asked whether it is written in the Elections law that the candidate has to submit an affidavit along with his nomination paper. He said when a candidate had given affidavit that he has contested as an independent candidate then how the Court can tell those persons to join a particular party. He asked Faisal why did he want that the Court ignore all these facts and accept his plea. The SIC counsel responded that they were demanding only those things, which Fatima Jinnah had asked for in 1960s. Justice Amin said no PTI candidate agitated his grievance before the Court and they also joined the SIC. In his arguments, Faisal raised a pertinent question whether the Commission which adjudicates between the two parties can invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to defend its decisions by filing review petition. 'This is clear-cut mala fide', he said, and added that the Commission is taking sides. He contended that other parties i.e. PPP and PML-N can file review petitions, the review petition of the ECP should outrightly be rejected as it is not maintainable.' He said a party (ECP) which has not implemented the judgment for the last one year was given right of audience. 'There has to be some dignity of the Supreme Court, as its verdicts should not be defied like that.' Faisal argued that the majority judgment has increased the time-line so that the independent candidates could join the PTI. He maintained that not only the Supreme Court has extended time period in the past, but the Election Commission of Pakistan also did the same in 2018 when for the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) they had issued a new schedule for reserved seats. Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned should this bench do the same? He said that the timeline under Article 51 of the Constitution is not writing in stone, it can be relaxed, as the majority judgment noted that the whole process of general elections February 2024 was marred with mala fide; therefore, they have reversed the process and 15-day time was given to the PTI backed independent candidates to decide about joining the party. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the constitution gives three days to the independents to join any party they wish, then why the 15 days were given, adding the majority judgment introduced new thing in the constitution. Faisal Siddiqui asked the Court not to see this case with an ordinary lens, saying this case is most important as the will of the people through their representatives is involved in this case. He also requested the bench to see complete justice by the majority judgment be respected. He said; 'Even though the judgment is against me (the SIC), I still would defend the judgment.' The case was adjourned until today (Wednesday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
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
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
No ECP appointments sans PM-Opp consultation: NA
PML-N-led coalition government in the Centre now has 229 members in the NA. PHOTO: APP The National Assembly Secretariat on Sunday clarified that the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was being carried out in full compliance with constitutional requirements and parliamentary procedures. In response to recent media reports, the secretariat confirmed that National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq has formally responded to a letter from Opposition Leader Omar Ayub regarding the appointments. "According to the spokesperson of the National Assembly, the constitutional and legal procedures for the formation of the parliamentary committee are being followed in letter and spirit. It was clarified that the first step in this process is mutual consultation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition," the statement clarified. According to the spokesperson for the National Assembly, the speaker, in his reply, outlined the constitutional and legal framework governing the formation of the parliamentary committee responsible for the appointments. He reminded the opposition leader that the first step in the entire process, as mandated by the Constitution, was mutual consultation between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. The speaker also referred to a letter dated May 16, 2025, sent by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to the opposition leader, in which the premier had initiated the consultative process for the nominations. The spokesperson added that in the event that the PM and the opposition leader fail to reach a consensus on the names for the CEC or ECP members, the matter shall be referred to the speaker under Article 213(2A) of the Constitution.
