ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Tuesday expressed its intent to challenge the composition of the existing constitutional bench of the Supreme Court hearing the reserved seats case.

The court subsequently postponed further proceedings till May 19 to let the political party submit an application questioning the composition of existing 11-judge bench by next week.

Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the 11-judge constitutional bench was hearing a set of review petitions seeking to revisit the SC’s decision that most of the reserved seats belonged to the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI). The petitions were filed by the PML-N, PPP, PTI and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the last year order.

In its July 12 short order, the apex court had explained that 41 of total 80 MNAs were the returned candidates of PTI and thus members of PTI’s parliamentary party in the National Assembly for all constitutional and legal purposes.

At the outset of Tuesday’s proceedings, senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui appeared at the rostrum and sought time to file an application questioning the constitution of the present bench hearing review petitions against the July 12, 2024 majority judgement.

Judges question delay on counsel’s part

Also, senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan appeared before the court on behalf of some candidates vying for the reserved seats in the national as well as the provincial assemblies.

Earlier, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, who had rejected the review petitions at the first hearing, pointed out in her reasons that the review petitions must be heard by a bench that has all available members of the July 12 majority’s decision including its author judge (Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah who was not on the constitutional bench).

Her reasons were never uploaded on the Supreme Court website despite her repeated instructions to the IT department and finally certain rules regarding uploading of dissenting notes were changed, sources said.

As per the new rules, which sources said were aimed at changing the perception about any divide among judges, any dissenting opinion and additional notes will not be uploaded on the SC website.

Judges question delay

When senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui sought time to file the application to challenge the composition of the existing constitutional bench, he was asked why he intended to move the plea after two hearings of the review petitions. He said his client did not receive any notice regarding the proceedings. Besides he could not reach Islamabad due to flights suspension amid escalation on the border, he added.

Justice Musarrat Hilali wondered, “You are seeking adjournment at the third hearing of the case,” asking if he had any idea that the proceedings before the constitutional bench had been underway for quite some time.

“Why did you not bring along the application even today to challenge the constitution of the bench?” Justice Aminuddin Khan asked. He also asked the counsel if he had come to attend the hearing without any formal notice.

The counsel said since this was SC’s hearing he had knowledge of the proceedings. He argued that the proceedings could be paused for a while, as the bench was not seized with a death penalty case that was necessary to be heard promptly.

He said he was not making any unreasonable request, as it would be better if the matter regarding the constitution of the bench was decided first before commencing the regular hearing.

Justice Aminuddin explained that bringing so many judges on the bench was an ‘arduous task’ since the composition of the larger bench disturbed court roster and proceedings of many other cases. However, he added, “It is your [the counsel’s] choice if he wants to file the application, which the bench may consider whenever taken.”

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that notices had to be issued to the other side as well in case the counsel filed the application on SIC’s behalf.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail reminded the counsel that he was standing before the constitutional bench and it was necessary to provide opportunity to every other party involved in the case. It would have been better, if he had raised his objections earlier or even during this hearing, he observed.

As the counsel was mentioning he did not receive details of the additional grounds provided on PML-N’s part in the case till Tuesday, Justice Hilali intervened, “For a counsel like Faisal Siddiqui, one hour is enough, what to talk of a few days”, apparently suggesting that the application could be moved without further delay.

After consulting with other judges on the matter, Justice Aminuddin gave the counsel an opportunity to file the application and postponed further proceedings till Monday.

Published in Dawn, May 14th, 2025