• Asks court to recall its short order, suspend its operation
• Argues PTI not entitled to relief it never sought

ISLAMABAD: After mulling over the landmark judgement on reserved seats, hailed by the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on Monday decided to approach the Supreme Court seeking its review contending that the full bench instead of interpretation of the constitution entered the domain of legislation.

The PML-N in its review petition moved through Barrister Haris Azmat requested the apex court to not only recall the verdict in the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) case, but also suspend its operation until pendency of the present matter, arguing that the PTI was a separate party and not entitled to the relief when it had neither filed any such plea before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) nor before any court.

In its short order issued on July 12, the majority members of the 13-judge full bench had declared PTI eligible to receive reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the assemblies and allowed the 41 members who contested the general election as independent candidates to approach the ECP within 15 days and demonstrate their party affiliation before officially joining the PTI.

By carving out a procedure of giving 15 days to the 41 independent candidates to join a political party, a procedure not provided under the constitution, the short order apparently entered the realm of rewriting the constitution, it argued, mentioning that the judiciary’s function is “interpretation, not legislation”. This novel procedure was in stark contradiction to the settled jurisprudence, the constitution and the Elections Act, 2017, the petition regretted.

The PML-N argued that the short order was silent on the main controversy between parties over the questions whether the SIC should be granted the reserved seats or if independents could join a party that had not won even a single general seat in Parliament and whether reserved seats be granted to the political party whose candidates had not even filed nomination papers within the time frame provided in the election schedule.

Since the short order did not address the issues of whether seats could be left vacant or would have to be distributed amongst the political parties contesting for those seats and the “proportional representation system of political parties lists of candidates”, the review petition urged the SC to recall the judgement.

It regretted that the petitioner was never put on notice as the submissions before the SC were focused only on SIC entitlement to the reserved seats or otherwise. Even this score alone was enough to recall the short order so that the petitioner could make proper submissions on the issue of PTI’s entitlement to the reserved seats, the review petition contended.

It said the entire case as pleaded before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) as well as the SC was to determine whether the SIC was entitled to the reserved seats.

Even in the leave granting order of May 6 by the SC, the contentions of the counsel for the SIC was that the allocation of the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to the political parties other than SIC was in violation of Article 51(6)(d) and (e) of the Constitution, which provides for proportional representation system on the basis of total number of general seats secured by each political party from the province concerned in the National Assembly. Therefore, the SIC was entitled to reserved seats as per the proportional representation system under Articles 51(6)(d) and (e) and 106 (2)(c), the SIC counsel had contended, the PML-N’s petition recalled.

Since the SIC fought the entire case claiming its right to the reserved seats instead of any other party, the short order went beyond the scope of the case, and thus could not be sustained, the petition argued.

It reminded the court that the SIC and PTI were two separate political parties and two separate entities, while the short order seemed to have treated them as one party with different names, which was not permissible under the law.

The PML-N further argued that since the PTI had not filed any case before the ECP, the PHC and the SC in the entire legal battle over reserved seats, it was not entitled to any relief, let alone a relief that was not even pleaded or prayed.

Published in Dawn, July 16th, 2024