The Peshawar High Court has rejected the applications of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) seeking reserved seats and against their division among other political parties.
Earlier, a five-member bench, headed by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, had reserved its verdict after arguments from both sides were completed.
The court's unanimous verdict was read out by bench head Justice Ibrahim. The court stated that it had the authority to hear the case to the extent of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa only.
Barrister Ali Zafar argued in court that in December 2023, the election commission withdrew the PTI's electoral symbol of 'bat' after which the PTI candidates participated in the election as independents. The Peshawar High Court then annulled the election commission's decision in January 2024 and restored the bat symbol. But the Supreme Court annulled the PHC's decision and reinstated the ECP's decision.
Later, the PTI-backed candidates won several seats in the February 8 elections, Barrister Zafar explained, adding that they got 91 seats in the National Assembly, 90 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 107 in Punjab, nine in Sindh and one in Balochistan. Out of these, 86 members from the National Assembly, 90 in KP, 107 in Punjab, nine in Sindh and one from Balochistan joined the SIC.
However, the election commission deprived them of the 78 reserved seats they deserved as per their numbers in the assemblies. "We did not submit the reserved seats list, so other parties reached out to the election commission to grab our share," Ali Zafar said, adding that the parties argued the SIC was not a political party.
"Just like land grabbing is a mafia, other political parties have turned into a reserved seat grabbing mafia," Ali Zafar remarked.
Justice Ijaz Anwar commented that this could not be called a mafia as the decision had been made by the election commission. Justice Ibrahim asked Barrister Zafar why he was using such strong words.
Ali Zafar apologized to the court and asked to delete his words. He asked what the status of a political party would be if it did not participate in elections. Sunni Ittehad Council is a listed party with an election symbol. Its contesting the election was not necessary as boycott was also a part of election, he argued.
The counsel said Article 17 provided for the fundamental rights of a political party. He then spoke about the difference between a political party and a parliamentary party, adding that elections for reserved seats are not general but held under a formula. A reserved seat is allotted in proportion to the success of a political party in the general election.
Justice Attique Shah asked about the status of reserved seats if independent candidates were successful in elections. Ali Zafar replied that the Constitution was silent on the matter.
Justice Ijaz Anwar questioned how SIC became a political party when it did not win a single general seat in the elections. Justice Shakeel Ahmed said reserved seats were allotted under general seats. Justice Arshad Ali asked Ali Zafar if they did not weaken the PTI's case by joining the SIC.
He replied in the affirmative, saying the PTI did not have an election symbol and its intra-party elections had been annulled.
Justice Ali remarked that after the Supreme Court judgment was announced, the party had time and they could have held intra-party elections. "The PTI's case is strong in the judgments you have submitted. But the Sunni Ittehad Council did not contest the election," he remarked.
The party head of the Sunni Ittehad Council also did not contest the election himself? Justice Anwar asked. Justice Ibrahim remarked that the court will have to look at the effects of its decision in the future also.
Justice Anwar asked if these reserved seats should not remain vacant. Ali Zafar responded in the affirmative and added that elections should be held again.
On being asked if such a situation had arisen before, the counsel replied that the BAP party was allotted reserved seats in 2018. Justice Arshad Ali remarked that the election commission had said th SIC did not submit the relevant documents. However, the lawyer said the documents were available on the ECP website.
"A father has more rights," Justice Ijaz Anwar remarked, evoking laughter in the court. Ali Zafar then quipped: "Consider us sons too."
The lawyer further questioned how the majority could be deprived of reserved seats in KP, adding that there was a need to understand the Constitution according to the current times. "There is no timeline given for reserved seats," Ali Zafar maintained, adding that the law is silent on when a list of reserved seats can be submitted and if it could be done after the elections.
Justice Shakeel remarked that it is incumbent on a political party that contests elections to submit a list. "If a political party did not participate in the election, how can it submit a list?" Justice Shakeel asked.
Ali Zafar argued that Article 51D of the Constitution provided the right that if a party wins a seat in parliament and 90 members join it later, it could submit a list for reserved seat.
Justice Ibrahim asked if it would not be discriminatory towards a party that has contested the general elections. The court noted that the Sunni Ittehad Council neither participated in the elections nor submitted a list for reserved seats.
Justice Anwar remarked that maybe the party was not interested in reserved seats. Ali Zafar added that perhaps it did not participate in elections because of political reasons or there was pressure on it.
The election commission's lawyer Sikandar Bashir stated that the petitioner has submitted applications for the entire country and not Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The applicant has also asked for the decision of the ECP to be annulled and approached other high courts also.
They have also requested to form a larger bench in the Lahore High Court, Bashir stated, adding that the Elections Act 2017 was made with the consultation of all political parties.
