ISLAMABAD: Continuing the saga of reserved seats involving the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), the federal government has expressed concern over the delay in issuing a detailed verdict of the Supreme Court on July 12 and called for a review of the dissenting remarks of two judges.
“The detailed verdict [July 12 verdict] has not been issued even after 15 days,” Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said while talking to the media in Lahore on Sunday.
The minister’s remarks refer to a Supreme Court ruling last month declaring the PTI eligible for reserved seats for women and minorities in the assemblies after overturning the decisions of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The decision not only paved the way for the return of the Imran Khan-founded party to parliament, but effectively deprived the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-led coalition government of a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision, the ECP has announced 39 out of 80 Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) as PTI members, along with 93 legislators in the Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh Assemblies as “returned candidates” of the former ruling party.
However, the PML-N and its key ally the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) filed a review application against the full court’s 8-5 majority decision.
In its review motion, the PML-N questions whether reserved seats can be allotted to a political party that has not submitted its party list within the stipulated time, whether reserved seats can be given to a political party whose candidates have not even submitted their list of candidates within the deadline given by the ECP and if independents could even join a political party that has not won a single general seat in parliament.
Meanwhile, the Bilawal Bhutto-led PPP claimed that the PTI was not entitled to the reserved seats as it had not claimed them at all.
Referring to the 29-page dissenting note written by Justices Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, who were members of the full bench, Tarar said the issues raised in the said document should be properly discussed.
“It is imperative that the points raised by [the two] judges are [properly] answered,” the minister said.
The said dissenting note of the judges pointed out that the SIC did not contest the February 8 national polls as a political party, with its chairman also contesting as an independent candidate.
They also said that to create and set aside compensation in this proceeding for PTI, the court “would have to exceed the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 175 and 185 of the Constitution and would also have to suspend Articles 51, 106 and 63 of the Constitution.” and Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 together with the relevant rules”.
“We would also have to insert in place of Articles 51, 106 and § 104 (listed above). Such articles and sections therein supersede and in accordance with the relief provided by the majority judgment,” the dissenting note reads.
Justices Khan and Afghan also pointed out that the review petitions filed in the SC may be ineffective due to the delay in the detailed verdict of the July 12 order.
The Information Minister based his argument on the opinion of the judges on the said question and questioned whether the judgment of the Supreme Court could be used as a justification for allowing the transition between the floor and the change of political affiliation.
Arguing that the SC decision deviates from constitutional provisions, Tarar complained of legal and constitutional ambiguity and said that if unilateral relief is granted, it will deal a blow to the constitution and the law of the land.
