• The lawyer has also been issued a message.
• SC Sends contempt notice to ECP as well.
• Attorneys point out alleged errors in majority decision.

Islamabad: As the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, he took to hear about the audit entries filed by the Election Commission in Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) against the Apex Court decision, two judge on Tuesday declared the petitioners.

The review of petitions was filed against the point of law on July 12, 2024, which had declared Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI), which were eligible for reserved seats.

A constitutional bench of 13 members, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducted a consultation on the petitions filed in reserved seats case by the Supreme Court.

The two judges who rejected the petitions for the review are Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi.

Meanwhile, 11 judges have issued messages to all the parties involved in these petitions.

The Rice Attorney in Pakistan has also been issued a notification under the Supreme Court order 27A. Separately, the supreme court sent out a contempt for the Court’s notice to the electoral authorities so as not to implement the judgment on July 12.

Justice Ayesha said she rejects the petitions about the review and will give her reasons in this regard.

On this occasion, lawyers who represented the ECP, PML-N and PPP had pointed out alleged errors in the majority decision.

In an unexpected legal victory for the largest opposition party, the Supreme Court on July 12, 2024, stated that the party of the Imran Khan prison is entitled to the allocation of reserved seats.

Implementation of this judgment could make PTI the largest party in the National Assembly. However, the ECP did not implement the verdict because of its objections to the decision.

Today’s hearing

During the case, PML-N’s lawyer Haris Azmat claimed that reserved seats were awarded such a party that was not even a party in the case.

Justice Ayesha responded to this point, stating that the answer to this had already been laid down in the original judgment. She further questioned the basis for the petition for the review.

Azmat said PTI had an army of lawyers, but they did not challenge these orders.

Justice Ayesha claimed that the original decision was made after hearing all points in detail.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted that the bench had the recurring officer (tranquility) order and the election commission’s decision in front of them.

Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the nation should be punished for a party’s mistake and whether the Supreme Court should ignore something that came to its attention.

Justice Abbasi noted that the PML-N lawyer resurrected his case in the petition for review and not specified the reasons for review.

Justice Ayesha asked if the original judgment had been implemented.

ECP lawyer Sikandar Mohmand claimed that the short decision is “the order of the court.”

He argued that the court’s judgment gave relief to a party who was not a party to the case and called it a significant error that required a review of the decision.

Justice Ayesha questioned the ECP on its implementation of the court’s decision. She also asked the ECP advisor to explain how the vote organizing authority is an affected party in the case.

ECP’s lawyer requested the court to allow him to present the ECP’s attitude. At the same time, he admitted that the court’s decision had only been implemented partially.

Justice Ayesha then asked if the ECP intended to “choose and choose” which parts of the court’s decision to implement. She also said that it seems that they will implement what they like and not what they do not.

Justice Mandokhail said that ECP’s response essentially constituted a refusal to make the decision.

Justice Mandokhail added that he has no interest in the case itself and that his interest is in the Supreme Court’s authority.

Justice Abbasi assessed the forum that there is also a disdain for the court’s petition pending due to the non-implementation of the court’s decision. PTI -Attorney Salman Akram Raja confirmed that the despised petition was scheduled to today.

Then the constitutional bench posted the consultation on the petitions to the audit until Wednesday (tomorrow) 11:30.

In their disagreement notes, Justice’s Ayesha and Abbasi declared all three petitions filed by PML-N, PPP and ECP as declining and rejected them. Justice Ayesha stated that she would issue detailed reasons for her decision on which Justice Abbasi said he was of the same opinion as well.

Despite the disagreement, the constitutional bench has issued messages to PML-N, PPP and ECP about their petitions.