Supreme Court Questions SIC’s Claim to Reserved Seats in Review Hearing

Islamabad: During the Supreme Court hearing on the review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) is not entitled to reserved seats. A constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case, with petitioner’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan presenting arguments.
At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned SIC’s claim to reserved seats, asking how the party could be entitled to them when it did not contest the elections. She noted that while independent candidates can join a party represented in Parliament, they cannot join a party that itself has no parliamentary representation.
Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that, according to SIC, independent candidates had joined the party after the elections. He admitted that SIC did not participate in the elections and that its chairman contested as an independent candidate.
Justice Mandokhail emphasized that SIC was not eligible for reserved seats, even though it could have formed a parliamentary party. Justice Hilali added that independent members are required to join winning parties.
The court also discussed procedural concerns. The counsel for SIC argued that their right to file a reply had been exhausted. However, the counsel for the Election Commission said they would submit a counter-response if necessary. Justice Aminuddin clarified that the court would decide whether further replies were needed.
Makhdoom Ali Khan highlighted that the SIC’s appeal had been unanimously rejected and members elected on reserved seats had been de-notified without prior notice. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the court had invalidated the Election Commission’s notification.
Discussions also focused on Article 225 of the Constitution, which governs election-related disputes. Justice Mandokhail questioned its relevance in this case, while Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that any unconstitutional decision must be rectified by the court.
Justice Shahid Bilal inquired whether PTI was a party in the reserved seats case and if non-party entities could be granted seats. Makhdoom responded that only party participants in the case could be awarded seats. Justice Yahya Afridi had earlier noted PTI was not a direct party in the matter.
Justice Mandokhail criticized the Election Commission’s role, suggesting it had not fulfilled its responsibilities properly.
The court adjourned the hearing until Tuesday, with SIC’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqi expected to present arguments in the next session.