Supreme Court Hears Reserved Seats Case During Holidays, Says Justice Mandokhail

Islamabad: During the Supreme Court hearing on the review petition regarding reserved seats, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the bench was sacrificing its vacations to hear the important case.
An 11-member full bench of the Supreme Court resumed proceedings in the high-profile review case related to reserved seats. During the hearing, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Salman Akram Raja argued that the seats allocated to PTI were legitimate. He cited the Peer Sabir Shah case, stating the court had upheld the principle of complete justice.
Justice Mandokhail commented, “In the original case, the repeated question was: where is PTI? Your arrival was delayed and not convincing. You came and suggested the seats be given to Sunni Ittehad Council.”
Raja contended that at the time of submitting nomination papers, the political situation was uncertain. “It was unclear whether PTI would regain its electoral symbol. Some candidates submitted papers as independents,” he explained.
Referring to statements made a day earlier, Justice Mandokhail asked, “You said yesterday that children were abducted. Does this really happen? That’s surprising to me.” Raja replied, “It may be a surprise for you, but not for the Pakistani public.”
When Raja presented a list of candidates and related documents, Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned why the list wasn’t presented earlier. Justice Mandokhail added that the court had to gather much of the evidence itself and pointed out discrepancies.
Justice Mandokhail further noted that three separate benches of the Supreme Court had heard electoral cases, with 99% of decisions favoring PTI. “In the original case, PTI’s presence was repeatedly questioned. You arrived late and not convincingly,” he reiterated.
Raja emphasized constitutional points, arguing that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under Articles 184(3) and 187 to act in public interest. He referred again to the Peer Sabir Shah case, supporting his stance on judicial authority for complete justice. He also contested Justice Musarrat Hilali’s earlier remarks that voting is not a fundamental right, asserting that it indeed is.
Justice Hilali interjected, pointing out that while Raja did not respond adequately in court, responses were later posted via fake social media accounts.
As the hearing concluded, lawyers requested an adjournment until Monday. Senior lawyer Hamid Khan objected, questioning why the case was now being heard daily after a 10-month delay. Justice Aminuddin cautioned him not to make speeches in court. Justice Mandokhail reiterated that the case had been previously postponed due to summer vacations, but now the bench was sacrificing its holidays to proceed with the hearings.
The hearing was adjourned until the next day.