Reserved seats review: PML-N, ECP counsel face the heat in SC
Pakistan
The bench kept asking whether ECP had complied with the original decision
ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) - The Supreme Court of Pakistan's 13-member constitutional bench has accepted the review petitions challenging its earlier verdict on reserved seats for hearing, issuing notices to all parties concerned.
The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, included Justices Jamal Mandokhail, Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Aqeel Abbasi, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Hashim Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamir Farooq, and Ali Baqar Najafi.
During the proceedings, PML-N counsel Haris Azmat argued that reserved seats were allocated to a party that was not even a respondent in the original case.
Justice Ayesha Malik questioned the basis for review, reminding that these concerns had already been addressed in the earlier judgment.
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar asked whether the objection was to the full judgement or just the majority opinion, to which the counsel replied that their disagreement was with the majority verdict.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi, in a sharp exchange, told the counsel that the court ruled according to the constitution, and repeated that review jurisdiction was limited. He added, “Are you now here to educate the Supreme Court?” and urged the counsel to stick to Article 181 and present legal grounds for review.
Justice Ayesha Malik asked, “Was the judgement on reserved seats implemented?”
Haris Azmat responded, “I am not sure.”
Justice Ayesha Malik objected, “You are standing before the court and say you’re not sure?”
The bench also grilled the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) lawyer, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, on whether the ECP had complied with the original decision.
The lawyer admitted to only partial compliance, prompting Justice Ayesha Malik to criticise the ECP’s “pick and choose” approach.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi questioned whether contempt proceedings should first be heard before the ECP could request a review.
Justice Ayesha Malik questioned how the ECP could be a party to the review, saying, “You weren’t even a proper party in the original case. Your attitude was like a political party’s, and now you seek a review of a verdict you didn’t implement?”
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked pointedly: “Are we to punish the nation for one party’s mistake? If something came to the Supreme Court’s notice, should we ignore it?”
Justice Hashim Kakar added, “If the ECP didn’t follow the ruling, how can we guarantee they’ll follow it in the future?”
Justice Mandokhail remarked, “Forget the case — where are you taking the Supreme Court? If we sentence someone to death, should they just wear the noose and say that’s enough?”
Justice Malik questioned the admissibility of the ECP’s review petition.
Justice Abbasi asked, “If we proceed with contempt, will you be in a position to argue your review?”
Eventually, 11 judges voted in favour of admitting the review petitions, while Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Abbasi dissented.
The court adjourned the hearing until Wednesday, stating that the pending contempt petitions would be heard simultaneously.
