Supreme Court Questions Lawyer Salman Akram Raja in Reserved Seats Case

Islamabad: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, conducted a hearing on the case regarding reserved seats, with key questions directed towards lawyer Salman Akram Raja. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, in particular, raised significant points during the proceedings.
Justice Amin-ud-Din questioned the rationale behind the request for reserved seats for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) after the BAP party had already been allocated seats. He asked, “If the BAP party received seats, why do you claim that Sunni Ittehad should also be given seats?”
The 11-member Constitutional Bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din, continued its hearing with Salman Akram Raja representing the counsel for Kunwal Shozab. Raja argued that the Election Commission’s decision on PTI’s intra-party elections violated the constitution. He also referenced the February 8 elections, saying they were conducted in disregard of constitutional provisions.
Justice Amin-ud-Din responded by urging Raja to focus his arguments on the revision of the existing judgment before the court. Raja, however, insisted on discussing the broader context, particularly regarding PTI’s intra-party elections and their implications.
Further, Salman Akram Raja detailed the sequence of events from December 22, 2023, when the Election Commission dissolved PTI as a party, leading candidates to submit their nomination papers as independent candidates. Raja emphasized that this action directly influenced the inclusion of the BAP party’s representatives for reserved seats, a point that raised questions about fairness.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel interjected, pointing out that the BAP party contested elections throughout the country. Justice Amin-ud-Din followed up by asking if the six PTI members who were granted reserved seats had specifically requested them from the Election Commission. Raja responded that the Election Commission had refused to recognize them as PTI members, resulting in their appeal to the Lahore High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court. However, Raja noted that the Registrar’s office raised objections regarding their documents, preventing their case from being heard in time.
Raja also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter, stating that the majority decision, backed by eight judges, had considered the broader interests of Pakistan’s public. He claimed that the judicial oversight corrected past mistakes, aiming to strengthen the constitutional framework.
The bench, however, questioned whether the court had the jurisdiction to address past decisions and whether such matters could be revisited under the doctrine of judicial review.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan raised concerns about Raja’s status as an intervener in the case, noting that his request to become a party to the case had not been accepted by the court. He suggested that Raja was effectively being heard out of courtesy, not as a direct party in the case.
The hearing was adjourned until the following day, with Salman Akram Raja confirming that he would complete his arguments at that time.