PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea of former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur for declaring Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf-backed independent members of the provincial assembly as the party’s lawmakers and ordering the allocation of reserved seats in the house accordingly.

A bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel also rejected separate pleas of Mr Gandapur and KP Assembly Speaker Babar Saleem Swati against the July 20 order of the court’s chief justice to nominate KP governor to administer oath to 25 newly-notified MPAs on reserved seats and subsequent oath-taking by them at the Governor’s House the same day.

It issued a short order to dismiss the three petitions after hearing arguments of lawyers for petitioners and the respondents, including political parties and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The detailed verdict in the case will be released afterward.

It also dismisses pleas against governor’s act of administering oath to MPAs elected on reserved seats

In one of the petitions, Mr Gandapur had sought multiple reliefs, requesting the court to declare unconstitutional Rule 94 of the Election Rules, which provides that a political party, which doesn’t have a symbol, shall not be treated as a political party for the purpose of allocation of reserved seats.

He requested the court to declare illegal an impugned letter issued to him by the ECP on July 14 for summoning the KP Assembly’s session for administering oaths to candidates of other political parties notified on reserved seats.

The petitioner prayed the court to strike down the ECP notification issued on July 4, 2025, to allocate reserved seats in the KP Assembly to political parties having less electoral mandate than the PTI.

He also sought orders for the ECP to allocate reserved seats to PTI strictly in accordance with the principle of proportional representation, as contemplated under the Constitution and Elections Act, 2017.

Similarly, in the other two petitions, Mr Gandapur and Mr Swati had requested the court to declare unconstitutional and illegal the July 20 notification issued by the PHC’s registrar wherein the chief justice nominated Governor Faisal Karim Kundi under Article 255(2) of the Constitution for administering oath to MPAs.

They also requested for declaring unconstitutional the notification of the governor about holding the oath-taking ceremony at the Governor’s House and a letter sent to the PHC by the ECP on July 16 requesting the chief justice to act under Article 255 (2) of the Constitution to nominate a person for administering oath to those lawmakers.

The petitioners also requested the court to declare void the oath administered to MPAs in question.

Lawyer for the ECP Mohsin Kamran Siddique contended that the Supreme Court had already delivered its judgement in the cases related to reserved seats following which those petitions were not maintainable.

Counsel for the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Aamir Javed argued that the PHC had rejected a petition of the chief of Sunni Ittehad Council for allocation of reserved seats, but that judgement was set aside by the Supreme Court.

He added that the constitutional bench of the apex court later allowed several review petitions and reversed the SC verdict.

The lawyer argued that in the light of that judgement reserved seats were allocated to different political parties. “Once the Supreme Court delivered that judgement the high court couldn’t reopen the same matter,” he argued.

When the bench asked for a copy of the apex court verdict, Mr Javed stated that the apex court had so far not released the detailed judgement and that its short order had been placed on file.

He noted that the ECP had issued notifications for allocations of seats reserved for women and religious minorities in accordance with the apex court judgement following which those members had already taken oath.

The lawyer added that the members elected on reserved seats also cast votes in the Senate polls in the province.

In the other two petitions, he said that as the assembly speaker was reluctant to administer oath to the MPAs elected on reserved seats, the chief justice then nominated the governor for the purpose in line with the Constitution.

Babar Khan Yousafzai, the lawyer for some respondents, insisted that those petitions had become infructuous as the members had already taken oath.

Advocate Basheer Wazir appeared for the petitioner, whereas advocate general Shah Faisal Uthmankhel also turned up.

The lawyer for petitioners Bashir Khan Wazir contended that the ECP had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision and declared PTI candidates independents.

He argued that under Section 215 of the Elections Act, if a political party didn’t conduct party polls, it wouldn’t be allocated an election symbol, but it would remain intact as a political party.

Mr Wazir, however, said that contrary to that section, the impugned Rule 94 provided that a political party meant only that which got an election symbol.

He argued that when there was a conflict between the Act and the rules, the former had to be followed.

The counsel questioned if PTI was a political party, then how its members were declared independents and its share of reserved seats was given to other parties.

Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2025