Judiciary never opposed martial Law, says Irfan Siddiqui, amid uproar over constitutional amendment

‘Reserved seats verdict has raised many questions, made situation so complex that it seems impossible to resolve’

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Senator Irfan Siddiqui has criticised the judiciary for failing to stand against martial law, while a heated debate surrounds a recent constitutional amendment.

Speaking at a press conference in Islamabad on Wednesday, Siddiqui questioned the legal basis of recent court decisions, particularly in relation to reserved seats and party defections.

"No member in the case of reserved seats said they wanted to change parties. Under what law can the judiciary tell someone to join another party?" Siddiqui asked, adding, "The judiciary has never stood up against martial law, and now there’s an uproar over parliament's constitutional amendment."

He expressed concerns over a recent court ruling that, according to him, created unnecessary complications. "The decision regarding reserved seats has raised many questions. It has made the situation so complex that it seems impossible to resolve."

Siddiqui also criticised the frequent striking down of laws by the judiciary. "We often hear that certain laws are in conflict with the Constitution, and the judiciary interprets and rules on them. But is it possible for a judicial bench to make a mistake? What were the reasons behind such errors?" he asked, referring to the Election Act being repeatedly violated in this case.

The senator pointed to the constitutional requirement that members join a party within three days. "These people joined the Sunni Ittehad Council within the given time. The Constitution restricts this for five years, but the judiciary breaks this rule and tells the ‘birds’ to fly out of the cage and join PTI. How does the judiciary have this authority? If it has been assumed, it has been wrongly done."

He further criticised the principle of "complete justice," stating, "No member expressed a desire to switch parties. Under what law can you force them to do so? The judiciary never stood firm against martial law, and now it’s challenging parliament’s constitutional amendments. We are left wondering which direction to take."

Siddiqui concluded by pointing to Article 239 of the Constitution, which states that constitutional amendments cannot be challenged in court. "This provision has been effectively nullified, and the authority of parliament is being restricted. Due to overreach, constitutional provisions are being paralysed," he said.