Reserved seats case: Can judges rewrite Constitution?
Pakistan
An 11-member constitutional bench is hearing the government's review petitions against the verdict
ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) – The constitutional bench hearing the appeal against reserved seats, has raised the question: Can judges go beyond the Constitution to make a decision? Can they rewrite the Constitution?
An 11-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan is hearing the government's review petitions against the verdict on reserved seats.
Counsel for Sunni Ittehad Council Faisal Siddiqi submitted that some parties had filed additional pleas, copies of which he received only today and would need time to review.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked the PML-N's counsel Advocate Haris Azmat how candidates from one party were declared independent and whether they had addressed this in their written submissions. He responded that an attempt had been made to answer. Faisal Siddiqi argued that some petitions did not comply with Supreme Court rules and should be dismissed.
Advocate Faisal mentioned that when asked about the election symbol of Sunni Ittehad Council, he had said it was the horse, but Hamid Raza contested as an independent. He said he would explain why Hamid ran as an independent. Justice Mandokhail noted that the case before the court wasn’t about individual candidacies.
Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that they had not received a satisfactory answer. She questioned why Hamid didn't contest under his party, which has existed since 2013, and why a parliamentary party was formed if he didn’t run under it.
Justice Hilali criticised the original verdict on reserved seats, saying it wrongly declared voting a fundamental right and extended a three-day deadline to 15 days, effectively rewriting the Constitution.
Faisal Siddiqi responded that the Constitution was not rewritten. Justice Hilali insisted it was. Siddiqi argued that all parties in a democracy should have equal rights and that the PTI candidates were deliberately denied theirs.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether it wasn't democratic for candidates to make independent choices, and that no one could be forced to join a party. Independents could freely join any parliamentary group.
Siddiqi stressed the Election Commission's role, saying it had declared PTI candidates as independents. He also said the majority opinion had ruled that PTI deserved the reserved seats.
Justice Khan warned Siddiqi that he might be creating issues for himself with this argument. Siddiqi replied that it didn’t matter who received the seats. Justice Mandokhail joked, “Your film will flop then,” to which Siddiqi responded, “The film will flop as per your will; your decision will be accepted.”
Siddiqi emphasized that everyone should have equal rights and that this was the first time a 13-member bench’s decision was under review. He noted that the verdict under review hadn’t even been read out in court. Justice Mandokhail questioned why he was complaining and who had stopped him from reading it.
Justice Mandokhail said PTI remained a party even after the intra-party decision and there was no confusion about it. Had there been, PTI would not have issued party certificates.
Siddiqi stated that the entire country was watching and insisted on reading the minority opinion
Addressing Justice Khan, Siddiqi joked that he was being watched like a hawk. Justice Khan replied, “Even then, you're taking so much time.” Justice Mandokhail added, “One must learn flattery from you,” to which Siddiqi corrected himself: “Sorry! I meant to say eagle, not hawk.”
Siddiqi claimed PTI had been prevented from contesting elections. Justice Mandokhail asked whether, according to the Constitution, parties or candidates contested elections. Siddiqi replied that party candidates contest, and the common election symbol represents this. He asserted that political parties do have the right to contest elections.
Justice Mandokhail stated that a candidate wanting to run under a party’s symbol must obtain a certificate from that party.
The Supreme Court's 11-member constitutional bench then adjourned the hearing of the review petitions against the reserved seats decision until June 16.
