zayan674701@gmail.com
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself on Friday from the bench hearing the reserved seats case.
An 11-member constitiutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan is currently hearing the case.
In its short order on July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, positioning it as the largest party in the National Assembly.
However, the National Assembly has not yet implemented the ruling, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have submitted review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s July 12 decision from last year.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed proceedings.
The decision comes after objections were raised regarding his participation in the case.
Justice Panhwar, part of an 11-member bench, opted to step down from the case on the grounds of preserving the court’s dignity.
In his remarks, he mentioned that his past association with the case’s key players, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to the objections.
He emphasised that his recusal was necessary to protect the institution’s integrity. But, he clarified, that it should not be seen as an admission of the objections’ validity.
The decision was met with mixed reactions in the courtroom. Advocate Hamid Khan lauded Justice Panhwar’s step, but Justice Aminuddin Khan said that the situation stemmed from the conduct of the involved parties.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail echoed this sentiment, highlighting that despite the controversy, Justice Panhwar was given a chance to speak even when two lawyers from the same party are generally not allowed to argue the case.
On Thursday, the CB turned down the request by one of PTI’s counsels to defer the hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case daily.
Earlier, PTI’s counsel advocate Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024, majority order of a full SC bench.
He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution.
Read: CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug
“After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007, several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled.”
“The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated.”
During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018 and 2024.
He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion.
“However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats,” he said.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how the apex court can stop any politician from contesting elections independently.
“Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, being major party leaders, decide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?” he asked.
Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party’s registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but the SIC was not present in parliament, she said.
Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the ‘Awam Dost’ party. “Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]?” asked Justice Rizvi.
The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term “Kaptaan ka Sipahi”.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI.
Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the Assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible.”
“Either they were more sensible or they had a higher tolerance for pressure,” added Justice Hilali.
Recalling past political events, SIC’s counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols.
“It was a Saturday, a holiday, but the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be.
At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand?
He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP even though the ANP had not even held any elections “We had conducted elections, but the ECP did not accept them.
We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently,” he said.
Justice Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time, while the PTI had already been given several years. “Your party constitution was made more foolproof; we can even say it’s better than others,” he noted
Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan’s request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9.30am today.
On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP’s December 22, 2023, order declaring the PTI’s intra-party polls null and void.
As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024, general elections as independents.
Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities.
The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in SC.
