Islamabad:
An 11-member constitutional bench (CB) from the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, raised questions about Pakistan Tehreek-In-Insaf (PTI) on Wednesday.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer of PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab that he had joined the case of the main box in the point of view as intervener because PTI was neither the party in the case nor a respondent.
In the past, in his arguments, Raja presented the story of the case to court. On this justice, Khan said the bench had a decision before it was to be reviewed. He asked Raja to keep his arguments for this decision.
Raja said the deviation from the Constitution started on December 22, 2023, when the Pakistan Election Commission made his decision against PTI’s intra-party elections. On January 13, the Supreme Court maintained the ECP decision, he said.
After this decision, he continued, some people submitted nomination papers in the parliamentary elections as independent candidates because they feared their papers could be rejected. He quoted his own example of submitting the PTI ticket, but the ECP returned and declared him an independent.
He also quoted the example of the allocation of reserved seats to Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) after the 2018 election. On this righteousness, Khan raised the question if BAP got the seats, so Sunni Itthad Council (SIC) should also get the seats.
Raja replied that he only defended Apex Court’s decision on July 12, 2024 and added that his point was to inform the court about the circumstances that led to the PTI-backed independent lawmakers to join SIC.
Justice Mandokhail noted that there were six people from PTI in parliament. Justice Khan asked Raja if these six people searched for the reserved seats from the ECP. Raja replied that the ECP did not consider them PTI’s lawmakers.
Raja said there was a small difference between the majority decision for eight judges and the disagreement notes from two judges. He added that Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi were among the eight judges looking at the facts from a broader perspective, while Justice Mandokhel and former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa looked at the facts from a less broad perspective.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Raja that he was not a party in the main case, rather joined the trial as intervener – which was neither a party nor a legal officer. The judge added that Raja’s application to become a party to the case was never approved.
That seemed, Justice Hassan said the court is listening to Raja out of courtesy. The judge asked Raja if he presented arguments about the benefits of the case. Raja replied that he would answer these questions. The hearing was postponed until Thursday.
In a previous consultation, on May 27, senior adviser Makhdoom Ali Khan had informed the constitutional bench (CB) on the Supreme Court that Article 187 of the Constitution – the basis of July 12, 2024 -majority, which did not provide relief to PTI in the reserved seats – did not strengthen the point to give a lot to a party.
