SC highlights ‘confusion’ surrounding SIC case

Supreme Court’s senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on Thursday noted that the issue of non-allocation of reserved seats to the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) is a unique case and that involves interpretation of the Constitution.

A 13-member full bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJ) Qazi Faez Isa on Thursday resumed hearing the SIC’s petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision not to allocate reserved seats to it in the national and provincial legislature.

The ECP on December 22, 2023 stripped the PTI of its election symbol in view of irregularities in its intra-party polls. The Supreme Court on January 13 upheld the ECP order, forcing the PTI candidates to contest the February 8 general elections as independents.

These independent returned candidates joined the SIC after the announcement of official election results. The SIC later sought reserved seats in parliament and provincial assemblies in proportion to its general seats.

However, the ECP on March 1 refused to allot these reserved seats to the SIC and allocated additional reserved seats to other political parties. The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on March 25 also upheld the ECP order, prompting the SIC to approach the apex court.

At an earlier hearing one of the judges on the bench had sought the nomination papers of the 81 PTI backed independents who later joined the SIC.

On Thursday, the ECP’s counsel Sikander Bashir Mohmand told the bench that the nomination papers were in the possession of respective returning officers (ROs). However, he could present a summary of these nomination papers.

Commenting on the summary, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said 35 of the 81 PTI backed returned candidates did not disclose their affiliation with the PTI in the nomination papers while a number of them did not submit their Party Affiliation Certificates, “showing their non-seriousness.”

In Pakistan, an election candidate affiliated with a political party must submit several documents along with his nomination papers including a Party Affiliation Certificate—usually a letter from a political party’s leadership confirming the candidate’s affiliation with the party and endorsing his candidacy.

Responding to the judges’ questions about the ECP’s method of declaring PTI backed candidates as independents, the ECP lawyer said the judges are asking questions that are not related to the case.

He said a five-member larger bench of the PHC, after hearing all parties, upheld the ECP’s decision. “The court is currently only considering the appeal against the PHC’s decision,” he said.

Justice Shah remarked, “We are examining the Constitution. This is a unique case, and we are viewing it in the context of constitutional interpretation.”

Another member of the bench, Justice Munib Akhtar also noted that the PHC’s order could not be declared to be unalterable just because it was a unanimous decision of five judges.

In response to a query by Justice Shah, the ECP’s counsel told the bench that the SIC chief Hamid Raza submitted the party ticket of the PTI but in his affidavit he stated that he is a member of the PTI-Nazriati (PTI-N).

After being deprived of its election symbol, the PTI had tried to strike a deal with the PTI-N in order to contest the February 8 general elections on the PTI-N election symbol.

However, the PTI-N withdrew from an agreement with the PTI at the eleventh hour. Justice Shah noted that the affidavit was a different matter but the fact was that Raza submitted the PTI’s party ticket.

CJ Qazi Faez Isa remarked that if a person wants to get married, the girl’s consent is also necessary.

“Is it not necessary to attach the party affiliation certificate if a candidate belongs to a party? What if the certificate is from the PTI but the affidavit is from PTI Nazriati? What will you do? What does the law say? Can you disqualify someone from elections in such a case?”

Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted that the ECP was to issue the final list of candidates on January 12, a day before the apex court upheld the ECP order stripping the PTI of its election symbol

“Can a candidate change parties after the date for withdrawing nomination papers?” he asked.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked if the ECP declared some candidates independent despite their claiming to be part of a party and submitting its certificate. The ECP’s counsel responded that there were such candidates, but they withdrew their nomination papers.

The CJ asked why the ECP changed the status of candidates.

“Why did it not consider them to be candidates of the party whose certificate of affiliation they had submitted along with their nomination papers?” he asked.

Justice Ayesha Malik asked the ECP counsel, “Why did you declare the candidates as independents when they themselves claimed to be affiliated with a political party? It was the ECP that made them independent candidates.”

Justice Munib Akhtar stated that the case was related to PTI, which is a national party.

“The ECP told the PTI that it would not get a symbol. The Supreme Court upheld the ECP’s decision, but it did not say that the PTI should be excluded from the elections.

“The purpose of the Supreme Court was never to exclude the PTI from the elections. The Supreme Court stood by the decision regarding the bat symbol, but excluding PTI from the elections was not the goal,” he added. The hearing of the case was later adjourned till Monday.