Supreme Court suspends allocation of SIC’s reserved seats

Islamabad, 7 May 2024, (GNP): The Supreme Court of Pakistan halted the decision of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to allocate extra reserved seats to other parties.

The court questioned the allocation of reserved seats from one party to another and referred the issue to a committee of judges to form a larger bench. The hearing was postponed until June 3, 2024.

A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah, presided over the hearing of petitions from the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).

The bench clarified that the interim order applies specifically to the contested seats, which are the additional reserved seats allocated beyond the initially designated ones for political parties.

It further specified that this order will take effect from May 5, 2024, onwards. Notices were also issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) and the Advocates-General of the Provinces under Order XXVII-A CPC.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has suspended the decision by the Peshawar High Court and the Election Commission of Pakistan to allocate extra reserved seats to other political parties.

The court questioned how one party could receive reserved seats intended for another party and referred the matter to a judges committee to form a larger bench. The hearing has been postponed until June 3.

This interim order specifically concerns disputed seats allocated beyond the initially designated ones for political parties, starting from May 5, 2024, onwards. Notices have been issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan and the Advocates-General of the Provinces.

The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), consisting of lawmakers backed by the PTI, filed petitions challenging the PHC’s decision to deprive them of reserved seats.

The SIC argued that the proportional representation system outlined in the Constitution does not depend on whether a party submits candidate lists before the general election or contests the election.

The party argued that the fundamental constitutional basis for the right to reserved seats under the proportional representation system is determined by either the “total number of general seats secured by each political party from the province concerned in the National Assembly” or the “total number of general seats secured by each political party in the provincial assembly.”

The Peshawar High Court dashed PTI’s hopes of obtaining reserved seats by dismissing the Sunni Ittehad Council’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s ruling denying reserved seats to the party on March 23, 2024.

Also Read: Saudi minister sees Pakistan as ‘high priority’ economic opportunity

PTI-backed independent candidates joined the SIC after losing their election symbol due to a ruling in an intra-party election case.

This marks the first time PTI has received relief from the apex court during CJP Qazi Faez Isa’s tenure. During the hearing, Justice Shah summoned the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) and an ECP representative as the court addressed a petition filed by the SIC.

During the hearing’s commencement, Justice Shah noted that the fundamental principle of democracy and the Constitution is the people’s mandate, which should be represented in parliament. The court emphasized that a majority should not be invalidated on technical grounds.

Additionally, the bench questioned whether the Constitution or the election act specified the reallocation of reserved seats to other parties such as the PML-N, PPPP, etc.

“If a political party is unable to attain an election symbol, its voters would be disenfranchised,” observed Justice Athar Minallah

Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Amir Rehman contended that the issue necessitated “constitutional interpretation” and urged the formation of a larger bench for adjudication.

However, he was informed that the hearing was at the “leave granting stage.” The bench clarified that the matter concerning the need for a larger bench would be considered after the initial hearing.

SICSupreme Court