Justice Salahuddin Panhwar repeated himself Friday from the bench and heard the reserved seats.

An 11-member constitic bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan is currently hearing the case.

In its short order on July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 out of 80 months on the list were elected candidates for PTI and placed it as the largest party in the National Assembly.

However, the National Assembly has not yet completed the decision, and the Election Commission in Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections.

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and ECP have submitted petitions on review of the Supreme Court’s decision on July 12 from last year.

The hearing was briefly postponed for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed the procedure.

The decision comes after an objection was made about his participation in the case.

Justice Panhwar, part of an 11-member bench, chose to resign the case because of preserving the dignity of the court.

In his remarks, he mentioned that his previous connection to the key players of the case, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to the objections.

He emphasized that his withdrawal was needed to protect the integrity of the institution. But he clarified that it should not be seen as an admission of the validity of the objection.

The decision was met with mixed reactions in the courtroom. Attorney Hamid Khan paid tribute to Justice Panhwar’s step, but justice Aminuddin Khan said the situation came from the behavior of the parties involved.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail repeated this feeling and emphasized that despite the controversy, Justice Panhwar got a chance to speak, even when two lawyers from the same party are generally not allowed to argue for the matter.

On Thursday, the CB rejected the request of one of PTI’s advice to postpone the consultation of the reserved seat case until August and noted that the bench intended to hear the case daily.

Earlier, PTI’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of July 12, 2024, the majority order for a full SC bench.

He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, as he said, serves as an example of how SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution.

Read: CB refuses to postpone reserved seats to case until Aug

“After the emergency introduced on November 3, 2007, several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergencies that were not unconstitutional and all actions taken in its demand were also canceled.”

“The court had decided that the judges appointed after the emergency had no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared illegal; the removed judges were reinstated.”

During the consultation, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the 2013, 2013, 2018 and 2024 parliamentary elections.

He said the record shows that the political party that won general seats in previous elections received reserved seats in about the same proportion.

“However, the situation is different in the recent parliamentary elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] It secured 83% of the general seats were assigned zero reserved seats, ”he said.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja how the point can prevent any politician from contesting elections independently.

“Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who are big party leaders, decide to compete independently, how can we prevent them?” He asked.

Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an electoral symbol does not mean that the political party’s registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined Sunni Itthad Council (SIC), but Sic was not present in parliament, she said.

Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in this case the facts were undisputed.

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that a political party in 1985 non-party elections called himself ‘awam dost’. “Did you introduce such an expression [for the PTI for the polls]? “Asked justice Rizvi.

The lawyer replied that PTI introduced the phrase “Captaan ka sipahi”.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within PTI.

Justice Mandokhail added that it seemed that the 39 members of the assembly opening their association with PTI were more sensible. “

“Either they were more sensible or they had a higher tolerance for pressure,” Justice Hilali added.

In a remote previous political events, SIC’s lawyer Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI election in the election was announced the very best day for the award of electoral symbols.

“It was a Saturday, a vacation, but the case was heard until 11 pm that night. Our candidates were still waiting and wondering what the verdict would be.

At midnight, our electoral symbol was removed from us and the deadline for symbolic allocation adopted. Then, where did we stand?

He said ECP gave more time to the ANP, even though the ANP hadn’t even held any elections, “we had held elections, but ECP did not accept them.

We encouraged it to finish us if necessary, but it removed us from our electoral symbol. On the same day, ANP and PTI were treated differently, ”he said.

Justice Mazhar replied that ANP was given an opportunity for the first time, while PTI had already had several years. “Your party constitution was made more fooled; we can even say it’s better than others,” he noted

Hamid Khan noted that it appeared that PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. CB also rejected Hamid Khan’s request to postpone the case until August. The court resumes the hearing at. 9.30 today.

On January 13, 2024, an SC bench with three members of the ECP’s December 22, 2023, retaining PTI’s Intra-Party vote invalidly.

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 SIC in an apparent bid to demand reserved seats for women and minorities.

However, the ECP refused to assign the seats to the party, a decision that SIC challenged in SC.