Islamabad:
The Election Commission in Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) in the Supreme Court’s consultation reviews in the reserved seat cases stating that PTI was never a party to SC.
On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench maintained ECP’s on December 22, 2023-order, declaring PTI’s intra-party polls invalid. As a consequence of the SC judgment and its “erroneous interpretation” of the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest on February 8, 2024, parliamentary elections as independent.
Eight such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined Sunni Intehad Council (SIC) in a seemingly suggestion to demand reserved seats for women and minorities. However, the ECP refused to assign the seats to the party, a decision that SIC contested in the Supreme Court.
On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the tip of the point through a majority of 8 to 5, PTI resurfaced as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the legislators who had submitted certificates for their association with PTI with their nomination papers were already PTI legislators.
SC stated that the remaining 41 legislators who had not submitted the attachment certificates at the time of submission of nomination could now do so within a period of 15 days. The government later submitted a review of petitions against the decision, and now a CB hears.
In his reply, the ECP said that the majority of judges approved on July 12 -order did not note the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18.
“Before these clarifications, the case was never presented to the full bench with 13 members. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution.”
The ECP stated that the majority of the judgment mentioned that PTI was present in court. It claimed that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor searching them for a forum.
It said through the decision on July 12 that SIC was replaced instead of PTI. It said the list of reserved seats is submitted before the election in accordance with the electoral plan. However, PTI was ordered to submit the list to reserved seats after the election, which is in violation of the law.
In addition, it said that 39 members were declared as PTI members in violation of the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was awarded beyond the framework of the court’s jurisdiction and the ECP was not heard when section 94 of the Election Act was invalid.
Meanwhile, PPP has also made further statements to the Supreme Court and claimed that the court’s decision on July 12 went beyond the petition and the sought relief.
The real question was simply whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The question of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never considered. The same question – whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats – was asked for ECP, Peshawar High Court and SC, it says.
The party claimed that SC issued a decision on reserved seats that were not associated with the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and gave relief that had never been requested. PTI and SIC are two different political parties, it added.
