SC turns down plea challenging SIC’s parliamentary party status

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the status of the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party, upholding objections raised by the registrar's office.

A seven-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case, Express News reported.

During the proceedings, petitioner Maulvi Iqbal Haider argued that his request was filed on time and that he sought a review of the Sunni Ittehad Council’s parliamentary designation.

In response, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated, "Why do you want us to perform an unconstitutional act? It is the candidates' choice to join any political party."

Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan cautioned Haider, remarking, "You are going down the same path that previously led to restrictions." The court ultimately upheld the registrar's objections and dismissed the petition.

Moreover, constitutional bench has dismissed a petition challenging the limited public access to the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that "90% of petitioners are unable to reach the Supreme Court."

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail responded, "We are listening to you directly—what more access do you need?"

He further criticised the notion, stating, "You are undermining your own institution. Some say our judiciary ranks 120, others say 150, but where these numbers come from, we don’t know."

The constitutional bench also dismissed a petition seeking a fixed time frame for the completion of trials in higher judicial forums.

During the hearing, Justice Ayesha Malik observed, "Many laws, including criminal laws, already have timelines." Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail added, "For time frames, you should approach Parliament for legislation."

Petitioner Hassan Raza argued that trials sometimes take 20 to 40 years to conclude. Justice Malik advised, "Avoid sweeping statements and baseless allegations. The system isn’t perfect, but there is progress. Your petition concerns the National Judicial Policy, and under Article 184 (3), we cannot issue directives. Reforms are ongoing; join those efforts if you wish—this is not our role."

Justice Mandokhail emphasised that "we are bound by the Constitution and law." Justice Musarrat Hilali cautioned that an equally strong response from the judiciary might cause further disillusionment.

Justice Malik further noted, "The Law and Justice Commission exists for judicial reforms—please refer to them." The court dismissed the petition following these arguments.