ISLAMABAD:
The Constitutional Bench (CB) reviewing the Supreme Court’s July 12, 2024 order—which allocated reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)—appears unlikely to uphold the majority verdict. The bench attributes the PTI’s failure to secure reserved seats after the February 2024 general elections largely to the party’s own legal missteps.
During hearings on the review petitions, judges questioned why PTI did not challenge the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to declare its candidates as independents, despite prominent lawyers contesting elections on the PTI ticket. The bench also reaffirmed the January 13, 2024 Supreme Court order declaring PTI’s intra-party elections illegal, which had resulted in the party losing its official election symbol.
Even the judge who dissented on ECP’s conduct criticized PTI’s “poor legal strategy” and the move by PTI-backed candidates to join the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), which had not participated in the general elections.
The original January 13 order was delivered by a three-member bench led by former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on the deadline for party symbol submissions in the 2024 elections. Since May 2023, PTI leadership has alleged government coercion to pressure its members into quitting the party. During elections, PTI candidates faced campaign restrictions and some nomination papers were seized.
Despite Justice Isa’s bench compelling the ECP to set the election date in consultation with the president, tensions between Isa and PTI persisted—especially after PTI filed a presidential reference seeking Isa’s removal during its tenure.
Following the January 13 ruling, PTI’s hopes for Supreme Court relief diminished. Subsequently, PTI counsel Latif Khosa withdrew a contempt petition against the ECP for allegedly failing to provide a level playing field.
Some legal experts question why Chief Justice Isa has not listed the review petition of his own January 13 order for hearing, which might clarify ambiguities arising from the ECP’s interpretation of the ruling. They point out that if the Supreme Court can issue clarifications in other cases, it should also address the ECP’s possible misreading of this critical order.
The current Constitutional Bench hearing the review includes judges appointed under the 26th Constitutional Amendment, a move PTI alleges was pushed through under pressure. Notably, the bench has not recommended reinstating six judges who were on the original reserved seats bench.
At present, none of the bench members support the July 12 majority ruling. Two judges who had signed the majority verdict have remained silent on it. Justice Ali Baqar Najfi has even described the majority decision as “biased,” while only Justice Salahuddin Panwar has shown interest in defending it.
Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar suggested that, as junior judges, they must uphold the judgment under review, but encouraged SIC counsel Faisal Siddiqi to highlight key points for deliberation. Bench leader Justice Aminuddin Khan has consistently questioned the relief granted to PTI by the majority on July 12.
Justice Mussarat Hilali, part of the January 13 bench, expressed concern that the majority ruling referenced the intra-party election case, which was not under review.
Siddiqi noted that while the majority judges criticized the ECP’s conduct, they did not challenge the January 13 order itself. He proceeded to read important sections of the July 12 judgment for the bench.
Overall, the likelihood of the July 12 verdict being upheld seems very low.
Critics argue the majority judges overstepped their judicial authority, while PTI lawyers maintain the judges sought to restore democracy, a core constitutional principle. The hearing has been adjourned until June 16.
Should the PTI fail to secure reserved seats, the status quo will persist. However, if ruling parties obtain reserved seats, they could potentially secure a two-thirds parliamentary majority, enabling constitutional amendments.
In the reserved seats case, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), through Farooq H Naek and Asad Abbasi, has submitted written replies. The PPP argues the order under review violates fundamental principles of constitutional interpretation, asserting that the court ventured into legislative functions by devising procedures not contemplated by the Constitution. They emphasize that established legal principles require strict adherence to prescribed procedures, which justifies recalling the contested order.
