A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Monday resumed a set of reviews of reviews against the pointed right-wing decision that had declared Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf, which was eligible for reserved seats, livestreaming procedures for the first time, since the adoption of the 26th constitutional change.

In the short order dated July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 of the 80 MNAs were returned candidates for PTI in the National Assembly.

The Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said the presidential officers and recurring officers could not perform their duties in accordance with the law and the constitution during the February 2024.

If the Supreme Court closed his eyes, he asked Makhoom Ali Khan, who has challenged the order on July 12 on behalf of certain women.

An 11-member bench of the point of point led by Justice Aminuddin Khan hears petitions against petitions against the 12th of July order, where it was established that PTI has the right to get reserved seats. However, the SC order has not yet been implemented.

Justices Ayesha a Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi had dismissed the petitions for reviewing the first consultation day.

The other 10 members of the bench are Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aameroq and Ali Baqar Najafi.

Interestingly, six judges, including the author of the majority decision, are not part of this larger bench.

Justice Shahid Bilal and Justice Mussarat Hilali speculated how reserved seats were given to PTI when they were not party – neither before the election commission in Pakistan or Peshwar High Court.

Justice Aminuddin Khan said it is an admitted fact that all PTI -backed candidates had joined Sunni Ittehaad Council, which did not contend the parliamentary elections.

Senior adviser Makhoom Ali Khan performed on behalf of PML-N and PPP female candidates affected by the decision in July 2024.

Justice Mandokhail said that all judges were unanimous that reserved seats could not be awarded SIC as it did not contest the parliamentary elections.

“How can independent legislators join a political party that is not in parliament? Competing the SIC election?” Justice Malik asked.

In response, the PPP lawyer clarified that the party had not participated in the election, and even its chairman, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, had run as an independent candidate.

Justice Mandokhail then noted, “Sic is not qualified for reserved seats. While the Sunni Ite Council could have formed a parliamentary party, it does not have the right to reserved seats”.

Makhoom also said that once they were reserved seats were awarded to certain people of ECP, the same could not be called in the question through Quo Warranto Jurisdiction.

Makhoom said that election vends could be challenged in accordance with Article 225 of the Constitution.

He also questioned the majority decision to exercise jurisdiction under Article 187 to assign seats to PTI. He said that SC has limited jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution.

Makhoom has completed its arguments. Surprisingly, advice for PMLN and ECP has adopted his arguments.

The hearing of the case is postponed until tomorrow when SIC advises Faisal Siddiqi starts his arguments

In his detailed judgment of the reserved seat case, author of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the Supreme Court criticized the ECP for its “illegal acts and omissions,” which caused prejudice to PTI and its supporters. The court also accused the ECP of not acting as an impartial steward for election.

On September 14, 2024, the day the government failed to introduce the 26th amendment to parliament, the Supreme Court issued a clarification and criticized the ECP for not enforcing its 12 July decision in the case for reserved seats.

Subsequently, on October 18, Justice Shah again clarified that the amendment to the 2017 Electoral Act, made in August, could not overthrow the verdict in the case of reserved seats.

“Election (Other Amendments), 2024” was seen as an attempt to bypass the SC decision by preventing independent legislators from joining a political party after a certain period.

A six-judge bench will hear PTI’s petition to challenge these changes in December 2024, while a separate PTI pleasing to the 13th of January 2024 decision on its electoral symbol is also pending.