- Attorney general has also been issued a notice.
- SC issues contempt notice to ECP as well.
- Lawyers point out alleged errors in majority ruling.
ISLAMABAD: As the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court took up hearing of the review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) against the apex court ruling, two judges on Tuesday declared the petitions as inadmissible.
The review petitions were filed against the apex court’s verdict of July 12, 2024, that had declared the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats.
A 13-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducted a hearing on the review petitions filed in the reserved seats case at the Supreme Court.
The two judges who dismissed the review petitions are Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi.
Meanwhile, 11 judges have issued notices to all the parties involved in these review petitions.
The attorney general of Pakistan has also been issued a notice under Supreme Court Order 27A. Separately, the top court has issued a contempt of court notice to the election authorities for not implementing the July 12 judgement.
Justice Ayesha said that she is rejecting the review petitions and will furnish her reasons in this regard.
On this occasion, lawyers representing the ECP, PML-N, and PPP had pointed out alleged errors in the majority ruling.
In an unexpected legal victory for the main opposition party, the Supreme Court on July 12, 2024, ruled that the party of incarcerated Imran Khan is eligible for the allocation of reserved seats.
Implementation of this verdict could make the PTI the single largest party in the National Assembly. However, the ECP did not implement the verdict owing to its objections to the ruling.
Today’s hearing
During the proceedings, PML-N’s lawyer Haris Azmat argued that reserved seats were allocated to one such party that was not even a party in the case.
Justice Ayesha responded to this point, stating that the answer to this was already provided in the initial judgement. She further questioned the basis of the review petition.
Azmat said that the PTI had an army of lawyers but they did not challenge those orders.
Justice Ayesha asserted that the initial decision was made after hearing all points in detail.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the bench had the Returning Officer’s (RO) order and the election commission’s decision before them.
Justice Mandokhail questioned if the nation should be punished for one party’s mistake and whether the Supreme Court should ignore something that came to its notice.
Justice Abbasi noted that the PML-N lawyer was re-arguing his case in the review petition and not specifying the grounds for review.
Justice Ayesha inquired if the initial judgement had been implemented.
ECP lawyer Sikandar Mohmand argued that the brief decision is the “order of the court.”
He argued that the court verdict provided relief to a party that was not a party to the case, calling it a significant error that required a review of the decision.
Justice Ayesha questioned the ECP regarding its implementation of the court’s ruling. She also asked the ECP counsel to explain how the poll organising authority is an affected party in the case.
The ECP’s lawyer requested the court to allow him to present the ECP’s stance. At the same time, he admitted that the court’s decision had been only partially implemented.
Justice Ayesha then asked whether the ECP intended to “pick and choose” which parts of the court’s decision to implement. She further stated that it seems they will implement what they like, and not what they don’t.
Justice Mandokhail said that the ECP’s response essentially amounted to a refusal to implement the decision.
Justice Mandokhail added that he has no interest in the case itself, and that his interest is in the authority of the Supreme Court.
Justice Abbasi apprised the forum that there is also a contempt of court petition pending due to the non-implementation of the court ruling. PTI lawyer Salman Akram Raja confirmed that the contempt petition was scheduled for today.
Following which, the constitutional bench adjourned the hearing on the review petitions until Wednesday (tomorrow) 11:30am.
In their dissenting notes, Justices Ayesha and Abbasi declared all three review petitions filed by the PML-N, PPP, and ECP as inadmissible and dismissed them. Justice Ayesha stated she would issue detailed reasons for her decision, upon which Justice Abbasi said he was also of the same opinion.
Despite the dissenting note, the constitutional bench has issued notices to the PML-N, PPP, and ECP on their review petitions.
