It’s a fact SIC didn’t contest polls: CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa remarked on Monday that the real position was that the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) did not contest elections.

He was hearing appeals of the SIC and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa assembly speaker as head of the 13-member full court bench of the apex court against a verdict of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), denying the party the reserved seats in National and provincial assemblies. Other members of the bench included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

At the CJP remark that the SIC had not contested elections, Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for the Sunni Ittehad Council, stated that the whole dispute revolved around the same thing. But, he added, since the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had recognised the SIC as a parliamentary party, it should be given the reserved seats.

Justice Aminuddin Khan asked whether the Sunni Ittehad Council had submitted any nomination papers, the lawyer replied that that was the real question in the case. The case proceedings were livestreamed by the court on its YouTube channel.

CJP Faez Isa asked the SIC counsel whether all the respondents, the beneficiary parties, agreed to his appeal. He replied that all the beneficiary parties – Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP) – getting SIC’s reserved seats in National and provincial assemblies were against his appeal.

PPP Counsel Advocate Farooq H. Naeeq, JUP Counsel Kamran Murtaza, and a lawyer representing the PMLN took the rostrum and opposed the SIC appeal. However, no one from the Awami National Party (ANP), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Tehreek-e-Istehkam-e-Pakistan and the PMLQ appeared before the court, who were also among the beneficiaries of the SIC reserved seats.

At the start of the hearing, KP Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel and counsel for the SIC submitted that with regard to reserved seats, a contempt case against the KP chief minister was pending before the PHC. The CJP asked the advocate general what was the link of the contempt case with the reserved seats case.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked the provincial law officer as to whether he would be playing the role of prosecutor if the contempt proceedings against the CM were initiated. The law officer replied in the affirmative.

Salman Akram Raja advocate informed the court that one Kanwal Shozeb, leader of the PTI women wing, had also filed an application for becoming party to the reserved seats case. The chief justice, however, said that first they would hear arguments of Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for Sunni Ittehad Council and later on they will also hear to him.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel and Justice Athar Minallah raised a question on the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) role with regard to reserved seats, allotted to other political parties.

Justice Minallah asked the SIC counsel whether a political party would lose all its rights if an electoral symbol was taken from it. “Can the Election Commission go against a political party,” Justice Minallah asked, while Justice Mandokhel also raised questions on the ECP decisions and powers regarding the PTI candidates, and remarked whether the political party, established under Article 17, had ceased to exist after the return of the electoral symbol. “Whether a political party could not field a candidate when the election symbol was withdrawn from it,” Justice Mandokhel questioned and further asked as to whether the ECP had the authority to declare someone independent. He remarked that people gave votes not to any independent candidate but to those who were supported by a party.

When a party says that someone is its candidate, and the candidate also aligns itself with the party, then what authority the Election Commission has to declare him an independent candidate, Justice Mandokhel questioned. He further questioned as to whether it could be concluded that the PTI remained as a party and submitted the lists of [candidates for] reserved seats. “If this happens, the seats will then go to the PTI and not to Sunni Ittehad Council, not to any independent, but to a political party.”

During the hearing when judges were posing questions to the SIC counsel, the chief justice asked the counsel to concentrate on his arguments. “If you don’t argue, how will I understand what to write on your behalf,” the CJP told Faisal Siddiqui.

The CJP, in a lighter vein, recalled that once he faced a bench; he asked that if the bench had decided, then he could close his case. At this, Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the full court was sitting there, adding that every judge was entitled to ask questions whenever he/she wanted. “Nothing should be implied that a mind has been made up for any decision; therefore, this kind of irresponsible statement cannot be accepted,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar also replied in the same vein.

Again the CJP said that he had said that in a lighter vein and then asked Faisal Siddiqui to move forward. Faisal Siddiqui, while arguing before the court, submitted that as per law, it was not necessary for a party to contest elections for specific seats. If independent candidates also join the party, specific seats should be given.

CJP Faez Isa observed that political issues should be resolved in parliament. Why does every issue come to the Supreme Court? Justice Athar Minallah observed that in every era, one party faces a blame; the PPP was stripped of its electoral symbol ‘sword’ while the PMLN also face the same situation.

Faisal Siddiqui contended that on February 22, the ECP recognised the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the ECP did not stop independent candidates from joining the Sunni Ittehad Council, adding that the commission could have said that as the SIC had not contested the election, therefore independents could not join it. But it did not do so, and accepted the independent candidates joining the SIC.

“After three days had passed for the independent members to join the SIC, the Election Commission told them that they cannot get the reserved seats,” Justice Mansoor remarked. He added that now those members could say that first the ECP asked them to join a party, and now they had come to get their right.

“The Election Commission first considers the inclusion as valid, later it does not even give them the reserved seats,” Justice Shah remarked. Justice Muneeb Akhtar observed that according to the ECP notification, the Sunni Ittehad Council did not win any seat in elections.

“Prima facie, there is no logic in the steps taken by the Election Commission,” Justice Muneeb remarked, adding that if the PTI’s involvement was behind the declaration of a parliamentary party, then it should have been done earlier.

Justice Minallah said if the Sunni Ittehad Council had made a mistake, the ECP could have corrected it. He said the whole matter related to public, and the public could not be disfranchised in any manner. “This is the spirit of Article 17 of the Constitution that people should not be made to suffer,” Justice Minallah remarked.

During the hearing, Faisal Siddiqui gave the court details of the controversial seats in the National and provincial assemblies and said that 22 seats of the National Assembly and 55 seats of the provincial assemblies were disputed.

He submitted that two seats were disputed in Sindh, one was given to the People’s Party and the other to the MQM, while 21 seats were disputed in the Punjab Assembly, of which 19 seats were won by the PMLN, one by the Peoples Party and one by Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party.

He submitted that the JUI got eight controversial seats in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, PMLN and PPP also got five seats in KP Assembly, PTI Parliamentarian and Awami National Party got one seat each in KP Assembly.

He informed the court that in KP, the controversial seats of three minorities were also given to other parties. The counsel requested to nullify the ECP as well as the PHC decision, and took the position that the political parties, which were allotted seats according to their parliamentary representation, should be re-distributed proportionally.

“It is against the constitutional principle of representation,” the counsel contended, adding that when the ECP recognised the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party, it should have given it reserved seats as per the representation.

The SIC counsel further submitted that as per law, it is not necessary for any party to contest election for certain seats. “If you join a party, you have to be given reserved seats. In the past, there was a law that it was necessary to contest elections for specific seats and get five per cent of votes; that law was abolished later,” Faisal Siddiqui submitted. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for Tuesday (today).