Islamabad:

The highest court in the country waded into unprotected waters on Monday when it began to hear petitions against its July 12 – a judgment that had handed over Pakistan Tehreek -e -Insaf (PTI) reserved for seats in the national and provincial laws – but without six of the original judge, including the author of the judgment.

The hearing broke new grounds in more ways than one that marked more first in legal history.

Review of petitions, filed by the reigning PML-N and PPP together with the Election Commission in Pakistan (ECP), is heard by a 13-member larger bench.

Oddly enough, the majority of the new Supreme Court bench was not part of the original decision, and no explanation has been offered as to why the Court’s constitutional committee did not recommend to include the six judges from the previous decision.

For the first time since the 26th constitutional amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court case was sent live, one step hailed as a step towards transparency, although the absence of key judges threw a long shadow.

Despite the high efforts, a single judge did not offer observations in favor of the said majority decision. Even Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi – both signatories to the original decision – remained unusually tight and adopted a tone of significant restraint.

In contrast, two judges who had not been part of the original bench raised a basic question: If PTI was not a party in the original case, how could it receive relief?

They wondered how reserved seats were given to PTI when they were not party, neither before ECP nor Peshawar High Court (PHC).

Justice Aminuddin Khan observed that it was an admitted fact that all PTI-supported returned candidates were connected to Sunni Intehad Council, which had not contested the general elections.

He pressed on and asked if any PTI-Supported Returned candidate had approached any forum to declare himself a PTI candidate.

‘Should SC close your eyes?’

However, the elephant in the courtroom remained the role of ECP during the controversial electoral measurements in February 2024, when most judges went over the discussion about it. Although the majority of the verdict had kept the ECP for accounting, only justice pointed Jamal Khan Mandokhail on the voting organ’s failures.

Justice Mandokhail – part of the minority that believed that PTI was entitled to reserved seats – said the presidential officers and recurring officers could not perform their duties in accordance with the law and the constitution during the February 2024.

He challenged the opposite lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, by asking, “Should the Supreme Court close his eyes?”

When he commented on the case, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii marked what he saw as a shining lapse in judicial due diligence.

“What I found most amazing was how some of the judges who were not part of the original procedure obviously had not read the judgment investigated. You sit to determine a mistake flowing on the ground.”

“You do extraordinary it without a author and many other judges senior for you who were part of the original procedure. You can certainly read the verdict for yourself and not rely on the lawyer’s arguments for updating the most basic principles of the case for you,” he added.

Observers also noted that the government’s side appeared in a hurry to tie loose ends. Counselors of PML-N, PPP and ECP all fell in line behind the arguments presented by Makhdoom Ali Khan, despite the original DOM’s criticism of ECP’s behavior.

Insiders suggests that justice Aminuddin Khan’s upcoming Hajj may be behind this urgent character. There is speculation that the reigning coalition is eager to see the case settled before his departure.

On the other side of the hallway, PTI and its allied Sunni Intehad Council (SIC) have engaged four senior advisers to defend the majority decision. SIC’s Faisal Siddiqi is intended to present its arguments today (Tuesday).

Legal circles believe that the current curses stem from the ECP’s wrong reading of the Supreme Court’s judgment of January 13, declaring PTI’s political votes illegal.

Furthermore, during the former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the court also came under fire to have pulled their feet on PTI’s petition for review – a delay that many people say the political field was flooded in uncertainty.

Even the majority decision had marked constitutional tension in the heart of the case.

The majority of the verdict had sought how the question of election of parties – a matter of a party’s internal governance – could trump the fundamental rights of citizens to vote and of political parties to effectively participate in and compete elections by obtaining a common symbol for their candidates, guaranteed under Article 17 (2) and 19 of the Constitution.