The Supreme Court on Tuesday admitted for formal hearing a series of review petitions challenging its earlier verdict that allowed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to be allotted reserved seats in assemblies.
Notices have been issued to the parties, including the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), to respond.
A 13-member larger constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case. While a majority of 11 judges approved the petitions for formal hearing, Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Abbasi dissented, terming the review petitions inadmissible.
In parallel, the court also sought a response from the ECP on a contempt of court petition filed for allegedly not implementing the Supreme Court’s previous decision regarding the allocation of reserved seats.
During the hearing, PML-N’s counsel Haris Azmat argued that reserved seats had been awarded to a party (PTI) that was not a party to the original case. However, Justice Ayesha Malik questioned the basis for the review, stating that this matter had already been addressed in the court’s detailed judgement. “What is the ground for your review?” she asked. “You are re-arguing the same case, not explaining the basis for a review.”
Justice Aqeel Abbasi echoed this concern, adding, “You are not telling the grounds for the review. We know these arguments since our student days.” He also reminded the lawyer that the Supreme Court had ruled in line with the Constitution.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, another member of the bench, grilled the PML-N’s lawyer: “Should we punish the whole nation for the mistake of one party?” He emphasized that if something comes to the Supreme Court’s notice, the Court cannot ignore it.
The debate intensified when the court questioned the ECP’s legal counsel, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, over the implementation of the earlier judgement. Justice Hashim Kakar pressed the ECP to give a straight answer: “Did you implement the decision? Yes or no?” The ECP’s lawyer admitted that they had implemented “up to one paragraph” of the decision.
This triggered sharp criticism from Justice Mandokhel, who remarked: “Is it your choice which paragraph to implement? If someone is sentenced to death tomorrow, can he say he only put the noose around his neck and left?”
Justice Aqeel Abbasi, expressing concern over the way the issue was being presented, urged the parties to refrain from politicizing the matter. “Leave out the political names. This is about the Constitution,” he remarked.
The court has adjourned the hearing till Wednesday and will continue proceedings on both the review petitions and the contempt of court case against the ECP.
