The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved verdict on a petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) against the denial of allocation of reserved seats.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa addressed the lawyers that he would not say with certainty when the decision would be announced. “We [the bench members] would consult with each other on the time to announce the decision.
Meanwhile, the court staff told media that the decision would not be pronounced today.
TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS
Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) counsel Faisal Siddiqui on Tuesday submitted before the Supreme Court that he would prove that the Election Commission (ECP) has not fulfilled its responsibility.
Advocate Siddiqui stated this as soon as the Supreme Court resumed hearing on the SIC’s plea regarding reserved seats for women and minorities.
A 13-member full court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, is hearing the plea. Other judges on the bench are Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) counsel Faisal Siddiqui on Tuesday submitted before the Supreme Court that he would prove that the Election Commission (ECP) has not fulfilled its responsibility.
Advocate Siddiqui stated this as soon as the Supreme Court resumed hearing on the SIC’s plea regarding reserved seats for women and minorities.
He submitted that he would be brief and take 15 minutes to argue his point.
Advocate Siddiqui stated that they [ECP] argued that the SIC did not participate in the elections, did not submit the list of candidates for reserved seats.
He argued that the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) did not win any seats in 2018 but got three reserved seats. The ECP submitted a prejudiced response regarding the BAP election.
The issue was raised before the ECP before moving the Supreme Court, he submitted and added that the ECP claim was contrary to its own documents. Isn’t it distortion [of facts]?
Justice Mandokhail asked the lawyer was the ECP decision in accordance with the Constitution? He replied that [in 2018] it was in accordance with the law.
Justice Minallah inquired him whether the ECP decision on the BAP reserved seats was challenged.
Advocate Siddiqui said that the ECP would have admitted that there was a mistake. But it acted as if the decision regarding the BAP did not exist.
Justice Saadat questioned him whether the BAP participated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections? Advocate Siddiqui replied that it contested the election but did not win a seat.
Justice Saadat said that this case is different. The SIC did not participate in the elections. He asked the lawyer to argue now and give a detailed answer later.
Justice Mandokhail said that there is a difference between a political party and a parliamentary party. The decisions taken in the parliament are made by the parliamentary party. Such decisions cannot be made by a political party. A parliamentary party is not bound to accept the decision of a political party.
For example, the parliamentary party will decide whether to vote the prime minister or not. It (the parliamentary party) is not bound to implement the decision of the political party.
Advocate Siddiqui agreed to Justice Mandokhail.
Justice Athar Minallah on Tuesday remarked that isn’t it responsibility of the judiciary to correct mistakes committed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) who denied the right to a political party by keeping it away “unconstitutionally”.