Hearing on SIC reserved seats case postponed till June 24

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan Tuesday postponed the hearing on appeals of the reserved seats of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) till June 24, stating that the case will be heard daily onwards.

A full court bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Manullah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

The hearing of the case is being broadcast live on the Supreme Court website and YouTube channel.

Since the beginning of the hearing, the arguments of SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui have been going on.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez forbade Faisal Siddiqui from saying ‘Lordship’ and that there is no need to say Lordship, time should be saved.

“Yesterday I was asked to frame some basic legal questions,” said SIC lawyer Faisal.

The Supreme Court directed him to present the complete facts of the case first.

Lawyer of Sunni Ittehad Council said that Justice Jamal Mandukhel's question yesterday was why Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) did not contest the election as a party. Salman Akram Raja had applied for the same which was not approved.

Faisal Siddiqui argued that the petitioner SIC did not participate in the elections as a party but as independents. SIC submitted the list for reserved seats as per the schedule. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), rejected the request, saying that the SIC did not participate in the elections.

CJP Qazi Faez Isa asked if all the documents are there which are related to the questions.

Lawyer Faisal replied: “I have all the questions, I will also show all the documents in the court. There is no dispute that the SIC did not contest the elections”.

Chief Justice of Pakistan asked why are you talking about the conflict. Just say that you did not contest the election, full stop. At two points you have written ‘parliamentary political party’, in the third place ‘political party’ and in the last place you have written ‘party’, is there any significant difference.

Faisal Siddiqui replied that according to Article 63-A, parliamentary party, and political party have been mentioned, a political party can be a parliamentary political party.

Qazi Faez Isa said that the constitution differentiates between political party and parliamentary political party. What were you before February 8?

Faisal replied that before February 8, we were a political party, after the joining of independent candidates, we became a parliamentary party.

CJP stated that in future the Sunni Unity Council and Tehreek-e-Insaf can also contest against each other.

SIC lawyer added that the case in the Supreme Court has nothing to do with PTI and SIC becoming rivals.

Chief Justice said to Faisal: “I have deleted the word ‘political’ from your questions”.

Justice Athar Minullah asked whether it is possible to have a parliamentary party without being a political party. Whichever party will be in the assembly will be the parliamentary party.

On this occasion, arguments were made in the Supreme Court on the difference between the words political party and parliamentary party.

The lawyer of SIC said that the word ‘parliamentary party’ will not be seen anywhere in the constitution apart from 63-A. An independent candidate does not contest elections on any party platform.

Qazi Faez said that the candidates who are not in front of us, whom you are representing, are all from PTI. They are leaving your party, in that case PTI leaders are not independents.

Justice Ayesha Malik said that the candidates of PTI could not contest the elections on election symbols, on what basis did the ECP give election symbols to the candidates of PTI. The ECP gave PTI an election symbol and recognized it as an independent candidate.

Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that decisions in the parliament are made by the parliamentary party, which everyone is bound to obey. The parliamentary party is not legally bound to obey the words of the party leader.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that Article 51 mentions a political party, not a parliamentary party. Article 51 and reserved seats are a matter before taking oath. If the candidates take oath, a parliamentary party will come into existence. The parliamentary party is irrelevant. It would be appropriate to focus on the political party and the case.

Justice Jamal added that an independent candidate would have been one who was not associated with any political party.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar further stated that if someone declares himself as a party candidate in the nomination papers and submits the ticket, then he will be considered a candidate of the party. An independent candidate will be the one who gives an affidavit that he does not belong to any political party. Those who joined the SIC declared themselves candidates of PTI in their nomination papers. The papers were approved as a candidate of PTI and the candidate was elected. How can Election Commission rules declare PTI candidates as independent? Whether the election symbol is the same or not is another debate, but the candidates will be the considered of the party.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez said that according to this, successful candidates of PTI joined the SIC, only independent candidates can join the political party.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that depriving a political party of its election symbol became a cause of controversy. The Supreme Court had upheld the decision to withdraw the election symbol.

Qazi Faez Isa asked whether PTI or independent candidates requested to take election symbol of ‘bat’. Why not challenge if the bat sign was not allotted?

Justice Ayesha Malik said that if someone gets a symbol, that specific symbol cannot be given to anyone else.

More to follow...