SIC reserved seats case: CJP Isa questions ex-President Arif Alvi's election date decision

Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on the case related to allotment of reserved seats until Monday 11:30 am.

KARACHI:

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faes Iza has questioned as to why former President Arif Alvi had not set a date for elections on behalf of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) despite being associated with the party.

The chief justice made the remark as he led a 13-member full court hearing the petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) against the denial of reserved seats.

Earlier during the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhel had stated that it is every candidate's right to get a symbol in election.

"A candidate participates in the elections, not the party, the candidate only shows his affiliation with the party, the candidate has the right to get the symbol for the election," he added.

Today's court session followed Attorney General, Mansoor Usman Awan's submission of the government's written reply to the apex court.

The reply opposes the SIC's plea to allocate reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and provincial assemblies.

In the detailed 30-page submission, the government argues that reserved seats for minorities and women should be allocated to political parties that participated in the elections and won at least one seat.

The allocation should be based on the party's total number of seats won, as stipulated by the law.

"Independently elected candidates are counted towards reserved seats for women and non-Muslims only when they join political parties within 3 days of publication of names of the returned candidates in the official Gazette" under Articles 51(6)(d) and (e), as well as 106(3)(c), the AGP’s response read.

The SIC neither contested the general elections as a political party nor filed any list of candidates for reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, under Section 104 of the Election Act, 2017, it further stated.

The attorney general said that the approval of the SIC’s appeal would be an "antithesis to the democracy" and "will weaken the political parties who participate in the electoral process".

Meanwhile, PTI has filed a petition in the SC seeking to intervene in the ongoing case.

The former ruling party has requested permission from the apex court to participate in the case following allegations by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) during the SIC's appeals hearing.

The petition states that PTI and SIC were eligible for reserved seats but were denied them.

SIC says it was prepared to provide a candidate list for allocation but was refused the opportunity.

The PTI accused the ECP of unconstitutionally assigning reserved seats, originally meant for the PTI-SIC alliance, to other political parties, which they claim goes against national aspirations.

Sikander Bashir Mohmand, the lawyer representing the ECP, began today's hearing presenting his arguments to the court.

He mentioned that nomination papers were requested from 81 independent members affiliated with the SIC.

He further said that all records are available at the district level, adding that although the complete detailed records are not accessible, only summaries are available.

Justice Shahid Waheed instructed that the priority list of Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) should also be provided. Lawyer Sikandar responded that Hamid Raza took an oath and stated his alignment with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Nazriati (PTI-N).

Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that, in his opinion, the ECP granted Hamid Raza the tower symbol, and the returning officers are officials of the ECP.

The lawyer mentioned that the ECP implemented Hamid Raza's final request. Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned which political party Hamid Raza associated himself with.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah requested to see the records; otherwise, the matter would remain unresolved.

Justice Jamal Mandukhel asked whether a candidate has the right to switch parties after withdrawing nomination papers. “Can a candidate express a desire to leave one party and seek nomination from another?” he inquired.

Justice Shah clarified that the case pertained to nomination papers and asked whether party certificates were attached to the candidate's nomination papers by returning officers.

CJP Isa remarked “Just as consent is necessary for marriage, attaching a party affiliation certificate is necessary for contesting elections. What would the law say if PTI-N's certificate was revoked and PTI’s declaration was canceled? Can votes be transferred to someone else?”

Sikandar said that considering the situation, returning officers found it easiest to declare such candidates independent.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked if there were cases where a candidate claimed party affiliation and provided a certificate, but the ECP declared them independent.

Sikandar said there were such cases, but those candidates had later withdrawn their nomination papers.

Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa remarked that "there should be no confusion about the symbols. Why shouldn't we consider Tehreek-e-Insaf candidates? There is no contradiction in the certificate, and the Election Commission is changing the candidate's status despite having the party's certificate. Why isn't the candidate's affiliation considered?"

Justice Jamal Mandukhel expressed an understanding that candidates do not have the right to change their political affiliation after the deadline.

Justice Ayesha Malik commented on why the ECP categorised candidates as independent when they claimed affiliation with a political party. This led to confusion about what a candidate should do if they did not receive a party ticket.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar clarified that the issue concerns not just one candidate but PTI as a national party. He remarked “The ECP informed PTI they would not receive a symbol. The Supreme Court upheld the commission's decision, but the aim was not to exclude PTI from the elections.”

Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked who was the President of the country on December 22, 2023.

Lawyer Sikandar replied Arif Alvi was the President at that time.

Justice Muneeb inquired whether there was a caretaker or political government, emphasising the need for neutrality from a caretaker government akin to the ECP's independence.

Chief Justice Isa remarked, “Based on Arif Alvi's track record, he would not have gone for elections.” He wondered as to why President Alvi had not set the election date on behalf of PTI.

Justice Athar Minalla emphasised that the people's intentions are reflected in the elections; any concerns raised about the elections are referred to the ECP.

Justice Mandukhel commented that the political symbol is secondary; it is the candidate who participates in the elections, not the party.

“The candidate merely demonstrates their affiliation with the party and has the right to obtain the election symbol”, he said.

Sikandar said that the final requests of those who joined the SIC were approved.

Justice Mandukhel said that the final list of candidates was to be released on January 12. He inquired “Can the candidate change the party after the date of return of nomination papers?”

ECP counsel said that the party ticket can be changed till the allotment of election symbol.

Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa queried whether Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Sunni Ittehad submitted lists during today's Supreme Court hearing on reserved seats. Counsel revealed that PTI provided a specific list for seats but Sunni Ittehad did not.

Justice Yahya Afridi inquired if the Election Commission allocated specific seats to Tehreek-e-Insaf. The counsel clarified that no specific seats were allocated to PTI.

Justice Ata Munallah remarked that the Election Commission excluded Tehreek-e-Insaf from the elections. He questioned what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission's decision was incorrect. The Election Commission does not have the authority to exclude any party from elections.

Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa then questioned the Election Commission's counsel on the time required. "Will you take 1 or 2 minutes?"

The lawyer replied that it would take me a lot of time to provide the evidence.

The Supreme Court then adjourned the hearing on the case related to allotment of reserved seats until Monday 11:30 am.

It also ordered other lawyers to provide lists regarding specific seats of Tehreek-e-Insaf.