All problems would have been solved if PTI had held intra-party polls: CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa Tuesday observed that all the problems would have been solved in a better way had Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) held the intra-party elections as the Supreme Court hinted to conclude the matter of reserved seats for women and minorities within two days.

A 13-member full court bench of the apex court, headed by the CJP, heard the appeals of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Assembly Speaker against the verdict of Peshawar High Court (PHC). Other members of the bench are Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, 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 Afgan.

The proceedings of the case was telecast live by the court on its YouTube channel. Counsel for the SIC Faisal Siddiqui continued his arguments. The court announced to hear only this matter on June 24 and 25 and no other case will be fixed for hearing on those days. The issue of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) intra-party election also came under discussion whereby Justice Isa remarked that if the party had held the said election, all the related issues could have resolved properly.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, observed that the judgment in the election symbol case led to the conclusion that ‘bat’ symbol is off the book and no one could get it. “Speaking for myself the inexorable logic that judgement could lead only to this conclusion that the election bat symbol is off the book and no one could get it, full stop, not for this general election 2024,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked. His remarks followed Faisal Siddiqui’s submission that the SIC did not file the list before the ECP for reserved seats before the elections. The PTI filed the list for reserved seats on December 22, 2023, within the election schedule, but the ECP did not accept it on the grounds that it was on the scrutiny stage and hence denied the PTI election symbol, he argued further.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar observed that anything that deviates from logic deviates from the judgement, and now this was the problem that faced the candidates who were nominees of the PTI. “What is the logic of reasoning of ECP, kindly read the paragraph 12,” the judge asked the SIC counsel.

The CJP, while responding to the Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s observations, said that very strong views and logic are being expressed, adding that the Supreme Court does not go by that logic but goes by what was written in the judgement. “We don’t take oath on a logic but take oath on the text of Constitution and the law of the land,” the CJP remarked, adding: “I am not bound by that logic or either of my own but we are bound by what we have written in the judgement.”

Faisal Siddiqui, however, submitted that the issue was as to how the ECP interpreted and implemented the SC judgement. He submitted that there was no dispute that the SIC did not contest the election, so it did not submit the list of candidates for reserved seats within the election schedule of the ECP. “Why are you using the word of dispute?” the CJP asked the counsel, adding that he should make a statement that they did not contest the election.

“Yes they did not, and I make a statement,” Fasial Siddiqui replied, adding that when the petitioner SIC applied for reserved seats, other political parties also applied for the additional seats which were sought by the SIC.

He submitted that the ECP through its order dismissed the petitioner’s request on the grounds that the petitioner did not contest the election and also not submit the priority list. He further informed the court that the ECP through the same order dated March 1, 2024 by a majority 4-1 allowed the additional allocation of reserved seats to other political parties other than SIC on the grounds that these seats could not be left open. “But the SIC was later recognised by ECP as a parliamentary party,” Justice Mazhar pointed out to the counsel. The SIC counsel said that nothing was mentioned in the ECP order that the independents cannot join the SIC.

To another question posed by the chief justice, the counsel submitted that in Article 63(a) of the Constitution a distinction is made between parliamentary party and a political party, so any political party can be a parliamentary party but when a political party does not contest election, it is not a parliamentary party. “What were you on February 8, 2024?” the CJP asked the counsel. Faisal Siddiqui replied that they were a political party and after elections and when independents joined them, they became a parliamentary party as well. Justice Minallah remarked that a political party can contest the election even without a symbol.

Justice Isa asked as to why the affected candidates did not apply for ‘bat’ symbol as their electoral symbol after the PTI was denied the same. Justice Muneeb observed that it would have been in violation of the court’s order. The ECP allotted the election symbol after the Supreme Court announced its judgment on January 13. Therefore, Justice Muneeb continued, each and every one of those candidates who identified themselves in terms of form A of the parent statutes, the practical effort would have been that PTI would have got the ‘bat’ symbol but it could not happen because of the Supreme Court judgement. “Therefore, the ECP made this, as the fact seems to me of cascading series of errors of law which is the first one they did it a bit of fudge and that appears in their reasoning,” Justice Muneeb remarked.

Justice Minallah inquired whether it is possible to have a parliamentary party without being a political party. Whichever party is in the assembly will be a parliamentary party. Justice Muneeb said that if someone declares himself as a party candidate in the nomination papers and submits the ticket, he will be considered as a candidate of the party. “The candidate will be the one who gives an affidavit that he does not belong to any political party, those who joined the Sunni alliance declared themselves as PTI candidates in the nomination papers, the papers were accepted as PTI candidates and the people were elected.”

Justice Ayesha said that on what basis did the ECP declare the candidates independent? The Election Commission allowed the candidates to contest the elections by recognising them as independent. Justice Muneeb said the Supreme Court had upheld the decision to withdraw the election symbol.

The chief justice remarked that the political party did not get the symbol as there were no intra-party elections. “Did any candidate apply for the bat symbol?” the CJP asked to which Faisal Siddiqui replied that the order was challenged after the rejection of the application to the Election Commission.

Justice Muneeb, however, observed that if any forum was approached for the election symbol, it would be an insult to the decision of the Supreme Court. Justice Ayesha observed that the electoral symbol reserved for a political party cannot be given to any other candidate. The chief justice inquired whether it is written in the Supreme Court decision that the symbol of the bat cannot be allotted to anyone else. Faisal Siddiqui said that nothing like this was written in the court decision.

Faisal Siddiqui, however, submitted that all the problems would have been solved better if some things were clarified with the decision of the Supreme Court, on which the chief justice remarked that all the problems would have been solved in a better way if Tehreek-e-Insaf had held intra-party elections.

Justice Manallah observed that the real stakeholders are the voters, the most important right is to vote. “We are the defenders of fundamental rights, we have to see how the rights of voters could be protected,” Justice Minallah remarked, adding that Tehreek-e-Insaf had repeatedly complained about a level playing field. Justice Minallah continued that this was not the first time that every political party had such a complaint at one time.

The chief justice, however, said that the case of level playing field is not before us, the court has to follow the law and not the ECP, adding that verdicts of the commission are challenged in the court every day. Justice Isa observed that if the PTI had conducted party elections, there would not have been a problem of seats today, adding that PTI had deprived its people of democratic rights, where was the desire of the voters reflected in the election of this political party? “If there was a party election, it would have benefited PTI members only, they would have contested the election,” the CJP remarked, adding that if you want to talk about democracy, then talk completely.

Justice Mansoor raised questions that what will happen if there are more independent parties in the House and two political parties. Will all reserved seats go to two political parties? Or will these parties get specific seats only in proportion to the number of seats they won? Resolve this conflict first, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel for the SIC.

Justice Mansoor further asked as to whether the two political parties will take specific seats in proportion to their won seats and what will happen to the rest of the seats will be seen later. It is not possible to distribute additional seats to the same political parties and by doing this the principle of proportional representation will be violated. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until June 24.