During a Supreme Court hearing on the review of the reserved seats verdict, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) is not entitled to reserved seats.
A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Monday live-streamed its proceedings for the first time as the 11-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed the proceedings after two judges — Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi — declared the petitions inadmissible during the initial hearings and chose to step down from further deliberations.
Justice Musarrat Hilali raised critical questions, asking how SIC could claim reserved seats when it neither contested the general elections nor entered Parliament as an elected political party. She stated, “Independent members may join a winning party, but how can they join a party that is not even in Parliament?”
Makhdoom Ali Khan responded by stating that, according to the SIC, independent candidates had joined them after the elections. However, he admitted that SIC did not contest elections, and even its chairman ran independently.
Justice Mandokhail maintained that SIC could form a parliamentary party but was not eligible for reserved seats under constitutional rules.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar also emphasised that reserved seats are supposed to be allocated based on proportional representation. He further questioned how Article 225 of the constitution applied to this case.
The debate touched on several legal and procedural issues, including whether the Election Commission’s notifications were justified and if the Supreme Court had appropriately addressed the matter in earlier rulings. Justice Mandokhail pointed out that in his earlier judgment, 39 candidates had clearly declared affiliation with PTI, not SIC.
Justice Shahid Bilal further questioned whether a political party not party to the case could claim the seats, prompting Makhdoom Ali Khan to argue that such a party cannot be granted reserved seats.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether he could change his own verdict. In response, senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan stated, “Of course, you can change your opinion.”
Justice Musarrat Hilali interjected with a cultural remark, saying, “A Pathan only has one word,” to which Makhdoom Ali Khan replied, “Yes, but opinions can change,” marking the end of his arguments.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) lawyers informed the court that written arguments had already been submitted, while the PPP’s counsel said they would submit theirs by tomorrow.
The Sunni Ittehad Council’s lawyer contended that by submitting written replies, the right to submit counter-replies had ended. The ECP’s lawyer responded that they would provide counter-replies if necessary.
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan clarified that it was up to the court to decide whether the right to submit counter-replies be granted or not.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqi, representing the SIC, will present arguments tomorrow.
The court then adjourned the hearing of the review petition against the decision to award reserved seats to SIC until tomorrow.
It is important to note that despite the top court’s earlier ruling allocating the reserved seats to the SIC, the decision was not implemented by the National Assembly, while the ECP had expressed objections. The review pleas were filed by the PML-N, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP.