SC dismisses PTI's intra-party polls plea after lawyers abstain from arguments

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's (PTI) petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the verdict on the party's internal polls was dismissed after its lawyers refused to proceed with the case after 26th the Constitutional Amendment on Monday.

The coalition government passed the contentious constitutional package in the National Assembly during the predawn hours on Monday, after successfully steering the 26th Amendment Bill, 2024, through the Senate.

The judicial reforms came into force later today after President Asif Ali Zardari signed the bill into law upon the advice of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

A three-member bench, headed by CJP Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, was hearing the PTI's plea to review its judgement on its intra-party election.

On January 13, the bench unanimously nullified the the judgement of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) decision declaring PTI's intra-party polls "unconstitutional".

The PTI had filed a plea in the apex court requesting to review its verdict.

During today's hearing, PTI's lawyer Hamid Khan filed a new petition for the constitution of a larger bench to hear the review petition.

Upon being asked about the reason for this request, the lawyer suggested the court see a past verdict by a 13-member bench in a Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) case.

At this, CJP Isa objected that it was a different case. He asked why didn't PTI want to give the arguments.

"Say what you want to say in my face instead of saying it on the television behind my back," the top judge remarked.

Responding to the remark, the PTI lawyer said that he cannot present the arguments against "an extremely biased person".

CJP Isa remarked that the petition being heard did not mention this aspect.

Meanwhile, Justice Hilali asked Hamid to tell why he was calling the existing bench biased.

After the exchange of remarks between the lawyer and CJP, PTI leader Barrister Ali Zafar maintained that the party will not present the arguments before this bench.

"This bench can no longer hear this case," he said while referring to the judicial amendments.

At this, CJP Isa remarked that he doesn't know about "any such amendment" as the matter has not been brought to his notice.

"Don't tell us what we can hear and what not," the top judge stated.

It may be noted that the constitutional changes had not yet been signed into law at this point of the hearing and, hence, did not apply to the Supreme Court or any bench of the court.

Lawyer Hamid said that they have requested the formation of a larger bench to hear this matter, but CJP Isa objected to the request, saying that a larger bench cannot be constituted for a review petition.

At this, the lawyer cited the majority verdict by SC's 8-member bench in the reserved seats case as an example.

However, the chief justice remarked that the case he is referring to has a review petition pending in the court.

"We won't remark on a case in which a review petition remains pending," he stated.

This was followed by Barrister Zafar and his lawyer's withdrawal from the rostrum, while CJP Isa dictated the order for the plea's dismissal, stating that the PTI lawyers did not give their arguments on the case's merit.

"No error could be pointed out in the original decision on the matter," the order read.

At this, lawyer Hamid said that the order should also mention the reason why they didn't present the arguments.

"Please state that I refused to give arguments before an extremely biased judge," he added.

After successfully steering the 26th Amendment Bill, 2024, through the Senate, the coalition government passed the contentious constitutional package in the National Assembly during the predawn hours on Monday.

The legal reforms fixed the CJP's tenure at three years, while a new top judge will be nominated by the parliamentary committee from the three most senior judges.

Moreover, the Supreme Court and high courts will have the constitutional benches established under the changes to the Constitution, in which the senior-most judge of each bench will serve as presiding officer.