A full-court bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, resumed hearing review petitions on the controversial allocation of reserved seats in a session broadcast live for the first time in Pakistan's judicial history.
Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned the eligibility of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to receive the reserved seats, pointing out, “PTI was not even a party in the original case—how could the seats be awarded to them?” She also noted that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), under whose banner PTI-backed candidates contested, had not won a single seat and its chairman, Hamid Raza, did not even contest the election himself.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked, “The absence of an election symbol does not dissolve a political party. Voters must not be deprived of their right to vote.” He added that during elections, it is the candidates—not the parties—who contest, and the party symbol serves merely as public awareness.
Counsel for the petitioners, Makhdoom Ali Khan, argued that the court's majority decision had declared 39 individuals as PTI-affiliated and had given 41 individuals 15 days to join a political party. He pointed out that PTI was not originally a party to the case and only joined later via an application seeking to assist the court.
Justice Mandokhail explained his reasoning behind allocating the reserved seats, saying, “I reviewed all available records thoroughly. In their certificates and declarations, 39 individuals had mentioned PTI.”
Justice Shahid Bilal asked whether PTI was ever a formal party in the reserved seats case and whether a non-party could be awarded seats. Makhdoom Ali Khan responded that a party not part of the proceedings could not be granted seats, and even Chief Justice Yahya Afridi had acknowledged PTI was not a respondent in the original matter.
Justice Mandokhail criticized the role of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), asserting it had failed to fulfill its constitutional duties. “Presiding officers did not properly compile Form 33. These administrative failures cannot be blamed on the public,” he said.
Makhdoom Ali Khan clarified that the Supreme Court had heard the matter not under Article 184(3), which deals with suo motu jurisdiction, but in its appellate jurisdiction over a High Court verdict.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that reserved seats are based on proportional representation and questioned whether Article 225—which bars challenges to elections outside election tribunals—applied in this matter.
The ECP’s lawyer informed the court that the Commission had already submitted its written arguments. PPP’s lawyer said their written submission would follow by the next day.
The hearing will resume at 11:30am on Tuesday.
