Govt voices concerns over delay in Supreme Court's detailed verdict on reserved seats

The federal government has voiced concerns over the delay in the issuance of the detailed verdict of the Supreme Court's short order on the allocation of reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), calling on the apex court to disclose the dissenting notes of two judges.

"The detailed verdict [of July 12 verdict] hasn't been issued even after 15 days," Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said while talking to the media in Lahore on Sunday.

The minister's remarks refer to the apex court's last month's ruling wherein it had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats of women and minorities in the assemblies after overturning the decisions of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The ruling not only paved the way for the Imran Khan-founded party's return to the parliament but also effectively deprived the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led coalition government of its two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.

Since the top court's ruling, the ECP has notified 39 out of 80 Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) as PTI members along with 93 lawmakers in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh assemblies as "returned candidates" of the former ruling party.

However, the PML-N and its key ally the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) have filed review pleas on the full court's 8-5 majority order.

In its review plea, the PML-N has questioned if reserved seats could be granted to a political party that had not submitted a party list within the prescribed time, whether a political party can be given reserved seats whose candidates have not even filed nomination papers within the time provided by the ECP and if independents could even join a political party which did not win a single general seat in parliament.

Meanwhile, the Bilawal Bhutto-led PPP has maintained that the PTI is not entitled to the reserved seats as it didn't claim them in the first place.

Discourse on dissenting note

Referring to the 29-page dissenting note written by Justices Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, who were part of the full court bench, Tarar said that the issues raised in the said document should be duly discussed.

"It's imperative that the points raised by the [two] judges are [duly] answered," the minister said.

The aforesaid judges' dissenting note pointed out that the SIC did not contest the February 8 nationwide polls as a political party, whereas, its chairman had also taken part as an independent candidate in the electoral event.

They also opined that for creating and carving out relief in these proceedings for PTI, the court "would have to travel beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 175 and 185 of the Constitution and would also have to suspend Articles 51, 106 and 63 of the Constitution and section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 along with the relevant rules".

"We would also have to insert instead of Articles 51, 106 and Section 104 (mentioned supra). Such articles and sections therein in substitution and in consonance with the relief granted through the majority judgement" read the dissenting note.

Justices Khan and Afghan also highlighted the review petitions filed in the SC may be rendered infructuous due to delay in the detailed verdict of the July 12 order.

Building his argument on the judges' take on the said issue, the information minister questioned if the apex court's ruling would be used as a justification to allow floor crossing and change of political affiliation.

Claiming that the SC ruling derogated from constitutional provisions, Tarar lamented the legal and constitutional ambiguity and said that if one-sided relief is granted it would deal a blow to the Constitution and the law of the land.