PHC weighs in on legal battle over reserved seats
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed a larger bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) did not contest the February 8 general elections, hence, it could not be allotted the reserved seats as per the law.
The bench, consisting of Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Ijaz Anwar, Justice SM Atiq Shah, Justice Shakeel Ahmed, and Justice Syed Arshad Ali, heard a petition from the SIC regarding the allocation of reserved seats for women and minorities in the National Assembly and provincial legislatures.
The SIC had challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s decision to not allocate reserved seats to them. During the hearing, Justice Ijaz Anwar remarked that the allocation of reserved seats in parliament resembled the distribution of spoils of war.
Representing the petitioner, Qazi Mohammad Anwar Advocate informed the court that senior lawyers Barrister Ali Zafar and Babar Awan would present arguments. Meanwhile, Anwar provided background information on the case.
Justice Ibrahim inquired whether any SIC candidate was successful in the February 8 election, to which Anwar replied in the negative. Justice Arshad noted that even the SIC chairman contested the election as an independent candidate.
Subsequently, the court directed AGP Awan to present his arguments. The AGP defended the ECP's decision, stating that the SIC had not submitted any list for the allocation of reserved seats before the election, which was a mandatory requirement under the law.
Responding to a query about redistributing the seats to other parties if not allocated to the SIC, the AGP asserted that parliament would be incomplete without the allocation of those seats, emphasizing the importance of representation for women and minorities.
Read SIC challenges ECP's reserved seats allocation in LHC
Justice Ibrahim then asked whether the ECP had the authority to distribute those seats to other parties, to which the AGP answered in the affirmative. Justice Ijaz Anwar inquired why the SIC, being a recognized political party, could not be given the reserved seats.
The AGP explained that a political party was defined as one that had participated in the election and deserved reserved seats accordingly, citing Section 1 of Article 63A of the Constitution.
ECP lawyer Sikander Bashir Mohmand concurred with the AGP's arguments but expressed a desire to provide further arguments on certain points. He clarified that a political party must field candidates in the elections and submit Form 66 for reserved seats, which had not been done in this case.
Legal representatives for other parties, including Farooq H Naek for the PPP, Kamran Murtaza for the JUI-F, and Barrister Haris Azmat for the PML-N, also shared their perspectives on the matter. Azmat argued that the high court lacked jurisdiction, suggesting that the petitioner could approach the Supreme Court or the Islamabad High Court.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing till Thursday (today) and instructed the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal that since he had been a lawyer in this case, therefore, he should hand over the case to another officer.
Separately, Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal of the Lahore High Court (LHC) turned down the SIC’s request for issuing a stay order against the allotment of reserved seats in light of the ECP new schedule and sought replies from the federal and provincial governments on the matter.
The SIC, joined by the PTI-backed independents, filed a petition in the LHC challenging the recent decision of the ECP to allocate reserved seats meant for it to other political parties. On the request for the stay order, Justice Iqbal emphasised that replies by the respondents should be submitted first.
In the petition, submitted through Chaudhry Ishtiaq A Khan, SIC Chairman Sahibzada Hamid Raza dubbed the ECP’s order unconstitutional and requested the court to suspend its operation. He also urged the court to restrain the respondents from taking oath until a final decision was reached.
The court sought replies from the federal and provincial governments on the next date of hearing.
Punjab Advocate General Khalid Ishaq argued that some lawmakers had already taken oath, hence the reply would be submitted to the extent of those who had not been sworn in yet.