CB questions PTI's role in seats case

An 11-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday raised questions about the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) becoming a party to the reserved seats review case.

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer for PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab, that he had joined the proceedings of the main case in the apex court as an intervener, because the PTI was neither the party to the case nor a respondent.

Earlier, in his arguments, Raja presented history of the case before the court. On that Justice Khan said that the bench had a decision before it that needed to be reviewed. He asked Raja to keep his arguments to that decision.

Raja said the deviation from the Constitution started on December 22, 2023, when the Election Commission of Pakistan gave its decision against the intra-party elections of the PTI. On January 13, the Supreme Court upheld the ECP decision, he said.

After that decision, he continued, did some people submit nomination papers in the general elections as independent candidates, because they feared that their papers could be rejected. He cited his own example that he submitted the PTI ticket but the ECP returned it and declared him as an independent.

He also cited the example of the allotment of reserved seats to the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) after 2018 elections. On that Justice Khan raised the question if the BAP got the seats, so the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) should also get the seats.

Raja replied that he was only defending the apex court's decision of July 12, 2024, adding that his point was to inform the court about the circumstances that led the PTI-backed Independent lawmakers to join the SIC.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that there were six people from the PTI in parliament. Justice Khan asked Raja whether those six people sought the reserved seats from the ECP. Raja replied that the ECP did not consider them as PTI's lawmakers.

Raja said that there was a slight difference between the majority decision of eight judges and the dissenting notes of two judges. He added that Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi were among the eight judges who looked at the facts from a broader perspective, while Justice Mandokhel and former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa looked at the facts from a less broad perspective.

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Raja that he was not a party to the main case, rather joined the court proceedings as an intervener — who was neither a party nor a judicial officer. The judge added that Raja's application for becoming a party to the case was never approved.

It seemed, Justice Hassan said, the court was listening to Raja out of courtesy. The judge asked Raja whether he was presenting arguments on the merits of the case. Raja replied that he would answer these questions. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday.

In an earlier hearing held on May 27, Senior Counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had informed the Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that Article 187 of the Con­stitution — the basis for the July 12, 2024 majority judgement which granted relief to the PTI in the res­e­rved seats case — does not em­p­ower the apex co­urt to grant relief to a party that was not before it.