Govt seeks review of SC’s July 12 ruling

The PML-N led federal government has finally filed a review petition against a Supreme Court order allowing the PTI party to get reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures.

On July 12, a 13-member full bench of the SC led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa announced its short order on a petition filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)—a party mainly comprising PTI backed candidates—against a Peshawar High Court (PHC) order.

The PHC on March 14 upheld an Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) decision not to allocate reserved seats to the SIC in the
National Assembly as well as the provincial assemblies.

In its short order, the SC not only set aside the PHC decision on reserved seats but also declared 39 returned candidates as PTI’s members of National Assembly (MNAs) through a majority verdict of 8-5, with five judges issuing dissenting notes.

The majority decision of eight judges, including Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed and Irfan Saadat Khan was delivered by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on the recommendation of CJ Isa.

Interestingly, the SC verdict gave a new lease of life to the PTI as the party will now have a direct representation in the National Assembly. The decision will facilitate the PTI-backed MNAs to take part in the assembly’s proceedings under the umbrella of PTI rather than the SIC.

The government on Monday filed a review petition against the July 12 ruling through Advocate Haris Azmat, contending that SC ruling is against the settled principles of interpretation of the Constitution.

“By carving out a procedure which is not provided under the Constitution, Order under Review might have gone into the realm of creating and not just interpreting the Constitution.

“[This] is against the long standing jurisprudence of this Honourable Court. It has been stated innumerable times by this Court that ‘the function of the Court is interpretation, not legislation’.”

It said it is now well-settled by the SC that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of the law without deviating from the prescribed procedure.

“In view of this principle alone, the Order under Review may be recalled.”

According to the petition, the July 12 majority ruling is absolutely silent on the main controversy between the parties and on question like whether the SIC should be granted the reserved seats and whether the reserved seats can be granted to a political party which did not submit a party list—for reserved seats—within the prescribed time given in the election programme.

It said the ruling is also silent as to whether a political party can be given reserved seats whose candidates have not even filed nomination papers within the time provided in the election programme.

The petition said the majority order also does not give an answer to questions like whether independents can even join a party which did not win a single general seat in parliament; whether reserved seats can be left vacant or have to be distributed amongst the political parties contesting for the said seats and what is the ‘proportional representation system of political parties’ lists of candidates’.

It said the petitioner—the government—was never put on notice on the fact that seats could actually be given to the PTI.

“It is precisely the reason that the submissions before this Honourable Court were only focused on the entitlement of the SIC to get the reserved seats or otherwise.

“In view of this score alone, the Order under Review may kindly be recalled for the Petitioner to make proper submissions on the issue of the entitlement of the PTI to be given the reserved seats,” it added.