PHC 'unanimously' rejects SIC's reserved seats plea

PESHAWAR: Announcing its reserved verdict on the plea filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) pertaining to the reserved seats, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) Thursday "unanimously rejected" the petitions filed by the party.

The SIC's plea challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) ruling denying the allocation of reserved seats to the party.

The petition's hearing was being conducted by a five-member bench led by Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Arshad Ali.

During his arguments, SIC's lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar said the Constitution does not mention when a party has to submit a list of names for reserved seats to the ECP.

"It is not written anywhere that you cannot resubmit the list or when it has to be submitted," the barrister argued, adding that there is no restriction on providing a second list and that the ECP could have issued a second schedule, as it did for the general elections.

"As per the law, those who participate in elections will get seats," Justice Anwar remarked.

The court then questioned Barrister Zafar if it wasn't clearly stated anywhere that the second schedule cannot be issued.

"The law does not prevent the Election Commission from issuing another schedule," the lawyer responded.

Justice Arshad remarked that Section 104 explains the mechanism for reserved seats as it states that when a list is submitted then another list can be given.

"Section 104 says that if a political party participates in an election, it will give a list," the lawyer argued.

He earlier argued that whoever wins the number of seats, they get reserved seats in the same proportion.

"Their seats cannot be increased."

"If these seats are not given, the parliament will not be complete," remarked the chief justice, responding to which the lawyer requested the court to interpret the Constitution in a way that there remains no gap in its interpretation.

Barrister Zafar told the court that the ECP has the authority to [make] laws to maintain justice. He added that there is also an election for reserved seats, and that, too, should be transparent.

While discussing the admissibility of the application, the lawyer said that the pleas filed in Punjab and Sindh were limited to the respective provincial assemblies, but the one being heard by PHC pertains to the reserved seats of the province issued in the National and KP provincial assembly.

He argued that while the SIC had not submitted the list, the Lahore High Court had given a decision that there was no prohibition.

Before concluding his arguments, Barrister Zafar then directed the court towards a declaration regarding the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) which he had taken from ECP’s website. The lawyer earlier argued that the party was also given reserved seats later by the electoral authority in the past.

Earlier when presenting his arguments in the court, ECP lawyer, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, said BAP has nothing to do with SIC’s case. He maintained that the party’s matter was related to a declaration, not a decision, adding that the SIC’s petitions are for the reserved seats in all the Assemblies.

“These petitions are beyond the jurisdiction of this court. The petitions filed in the Sindh High Court are similar to these petitions,” the ECP lawyer argued, highlighting that all petitions have the same petitioner and follow the same pattern.

The ECP lawyer said a request was made for a larger bench in the Lahore High Court.

Justice Arshad said that the particular petition being discussed is before the PHC, while other high courts will give their decisions on the pleas filed with them.

During his arguments, Additional Advocate General Mubasher Manzoor said independent candidates joined the SIC, which became a parliamentary party.

“A political party is defined as one which has participated in an election,” he argued.

The court told the SIC lawyer that only reserved seats have been taken from the party under Section 104, while they have other rights.

Barrister Zafar earlier reminded the court about iconic 'bat' symbol being taken away from the PTI and how the PHC’s decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in favour of the ECP.

Responding to the lawyer’s comments, the court stated that reserved seats are given when political parties win a seat in the Parliament and that the SIC did not win any.

Independent candidates became a part of the party when they joined it, Barrister Zafar said.

“The word secure has appeared in the law, you have not secured the seats,” the court remarked.

Justice Arshad said: “If you do not win the seat, even independent candidates cannot join you. Did you not weaken the PTI’s case by joining the Sunni Ittehad Council? PTI was still a political party.”

Barrister Zafar said the PTI neither had an election symbol nor a party chief.

Commenting on SIC, the judge said that PTI’s independent candidates joined a party that won no seats and even its head himself did not participate in the elections through its ticket.

The electoral body, on March 4, had accepted applications of the opposing parties and decided that the seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain vacant and would be allocated by a proportional representation process of political parties on the basis of seats won by political parties.

More to follow...