Top court grants major relief to PTI on reserved seats issue
SC suspends Peshawar High Court verdict denying reserved parliamentary seats to Pti-backed party Sunni Ittehad Council; PTI chief hails top court’s decision
The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday suspended a verdict of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) that had denied the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) — the new home for Pakistan Tehrik-e-insaf (PTI) lawmakers-elect — reserved seats for women and minorities.
This temporarily poured cold water on the federal government’s plan to bring a constitutional amendment extending the tenure of Supreme Court Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and changing the mode of appointment of judges in the superior courts. The government was thus stripped of its two-thirds majority in the parliament that is mandatory for a constitutional amendment. At the same time, the suspension of the PHC judgment came as a major relief to the PTI.
The development came as a three-member bench — headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah — took up a PTI appeal against the PHC order that had denied to it the reserved seats for women and minorities.
The three-member bench suspended the verdict pertaining to the allocation of reserved seats to other political parties. Justice Shah said that the case has been fixed for hearing and “we are suspending the ECP and PHC verdicts.”
Justice Shah said that today’s suspension verdict only applies to the allocation of additional seats. He emphasised that the people’s mandate should be represented correctly in Parliament.
Meanwhile, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan hailed the decision of SC on reserved seats. Talking to newsmen outside the Supreme Court, Barrister Gohar hoped that the final verdict would also come in their favour after hearing the case.
PTI lawyer Faisal Siddiqui informed the court that Pti-backed independent candidates who had won the Feb.8 general elections had joined the SIC. At one point, when Justice Minallah asked if the PTI was a “registered political party,” the lawyer replied in the affirmative. Justice Shah observed, “It is a registered political party but just did not take part in the elections.” “Within how many days must independent candidates join a party?” Justice Mazhar asked, to which Siddiqui replied that such Mps-elect have to join a party within three days of the notification of their success. Justice Minallah then asked, “If a political party does not have an electoral symbol, will its candidates lose their right to represent their party?” The counsel responded: “A political party can become a parliamentary party after contesting the general elections. Another situation is that a political party does not take part in elections but winning independent lawmakers join that party.”
Justice Shah asked under what formula reserved seats were distributed among political parties. “Would a political party get reserved seats according to the seats it has won or can it also get more than its share?”
Siddiqui answered that any political party, under any circumstances, cannot get more than its share of reserved seats.
Justice Minallah observed that a political party could only get reserved seats according to the number of general seats it had won.
“Where is it written in the law that the remaining reserved seats should be distributed among the same political parties?” Justice Shah asked.
“We have to protect the public mandate. The real issue is of the public mandate.”
Justice Minallah then asked, “Where is it written in the law that a political party cannot contest elections upon not receiving an electoral symbol?”
Advocate Salman Akram Raja, who contested the Feb.8 polls as a Pti-backed independent, recalled that the same question had been asked in a court before the elections. “One thing is decided — a party would only get reserved seats according to the representation it has in the assemblies,” Justice Minallah remarked.
“How is it possible that someone’s mandate is handed over to someone else?” Justice Shah wondered.
Justice Mazhar asked whether the ECP had not given the unallocated reserved seats to other political parties under its suo motu powers.
“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly either,” Justice Minallah remarked. “Is it right to ignore a political party’s mandate in an indirect manner?”