The PTI on Saturday petitioned the Supreme Court seeking clarification on how National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq’s letter to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) would affect the implementation of the apex court’s verdict on reserved seats.
In July, the top court declared the PTI eligible to receive reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the national and provincial assemblies, giving it a new lease on life in the legislature by declaring it a parliamentary party.
The SC dealt a further major blow to the PML-N-led coalition government last week, as it reprimanded the ECP for not implementing its July 12 judgement, further complicating the Shehbaz Sharif-led administration’s efforts to secure the required numbers to pass a controversial Constitutional Package related to the judiciary.
However, in a letter on Thursday, Sadiq had said that the judgment on reserved seats “cannot be implemented under the Amended Election Act, 2017”.
Sadiq had urged the body to honour laws made by parliament, insisting that the amended Elections Act prevents independent lawmakers from switching parties.
He had alleged that the Supreme Court’s July 12 ruling enabled a candidate to switch political parties and argued that this went against the amended Elections Act, which he said now has overriding authority.
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan submitted a petition today, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, against the NA speaker’s letter, rubbishing it and a similar letter by the Punjab Assembly speaker as “nothing but an attempt to obstruct implementation” of the reserved seats verdict.
It argued that the verdict was passed “on the constitutional plane, being the proper interpretation and understanding of the relevant constitutional provisions” and could, therefore, not be superseded by ordinary legislation.
It said that according to a September 14 clarification order from the SC, the PTI’s certifications “were correct and valid in terms of the short order” and the “continued denial and refusal of the commission to accept the same” was legally incorrect.
The PTI contended that with the July ruling and the recent clarification order, the affiliation of 80 returned MNAs “stands finally determined”.
The petition expressed concern that “considering ECP’s prejudice towards the PTI, and its recalcitrance in implementing the short order … PTI fears that the ECP will use the speakers’ letters to wrongly refuse implementation of the short order and will instead declare PTI’s returned candidates as independents and will allocate reserved seats to other political parties on such basis.”
It said it was clear that the letters and the ECP’s conduct pursuant were “a blatant and contumacious attempt at hindering and obstructing the implementation of the orders of this court. As such, appropriate proceedings, including those for contempt of court, may, if considered appropriate, be initiated against the relevant personnel.”
The petition requested clarification from the court that the Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, did not have any impact on the “binding nature” of the reserved seats ruling whose implementation could not be refused on the basis of the aforementioned act.
The petition requested clarification that the two letters by the speakers did not set out the correct constitutional and legal position, had no legal effect on the July verdict and were liable to be ignored by the ECP.
It further requested clarification that the ECP was bound to implemented the July verdict, especially after last week’s court order.
Lastly, the petition requested that the ECP “be restrained” from allocating the reserved seats to any other party till the determination of the current matter.
