As the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Monday took up a set of review pleas against the top court\u2019s ruling that had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats, two judges declared the petitions as inadmissible.<\/p>\n
In its July 12, 2024 short order, eight out of 13 judges ruled that 39 out of a list of 80 MNAs were and are the returned candidates of the PTI, setting it to emerge as the single largest party in the National Assembly.<\/p>\n
However, the ruling had not been implemented by the National Assembly, while the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had raised some objections. The review petitions against the SC order had been filed by the PML-N, the PPP and the ECP.<\/p>\n
As the full-strength 13-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan took up the review pleas today, Justices Ayesha A. Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi objected to them, declaring the applications as inadmissible.<\/p>\n
The other 10 members of the bench were Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi.<\/p>\n
Five of the eight judges who ruled in PTI\u2019s favour \u2014 namely senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan \u2014 are not part of the CB.<\/p>\n
While Justices Mazhar, Ayesha and Rizvi were part of that majority verdict, Justices Aminuddin and Afghan had rejected the PTI\u2019s pleas, denying it the reserved seats.<\/p>\n
According to a cause list issued by the SC, the review pleas included three filed by the PML-N, including one by its leader Huma Akhtar Chughtai, as well two each from the PPP and the ECP.<\/p>\n
Barrister Haris Azmat appeared as the counsel for the PML-N while Sikandar Bashir Mohmand was present on behalf of the ECP.<\/p>\n
During the hearing, judges of the apex court repeatedly questioned the ECP lawyer about the electoral watchdog not implementing the July 12 verdict.<\/p>\n
While the CB formally accepted the review petitions for hearing, Justices Ayesha and Abbasi dissented with the majority decision, objecting to the maintainability of the pleas.<\/p>\n
With a split majority of 11-2, the bench issued notices to the parties in the case and adjourned the hearing till tomorrow (Wednesday).<\/p>\n
It also stated that a contempt plea filed by PTI\u2019s Kanwal Shauzab against the ECP for not implementing the SC\u2019s July 12 ruling would be clubbed with the review pleas.<\/p>\n
In its review application, the ECP submitted that the July 12 short order was based on the law that has since been altered by the amendments made to Sections 66 and 104 of the Elections Act and a new section, namely 104-A, has also been inserted with retrospective effect.<\/p>\n
It requested the SC to revisit its judgement in the reserved seat case that granted relief to the PTI, saying it was neither a political party nor individuals claiming to be its candidates had ever approached the ECP, Peshawar High Court or the apex court to claim the reserved seats.<\/p>\n
In its detailed verdict on the reserved seats case, which was authored by senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the SC had observed that the ECP\u2019s numerous \u201cunlawful acts and omissions\u201d had \u201ccaused confusion and prejudice to PTI, its candidates and the electorate who voted for PTI\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Monday took up a set of review pleas against the top court\u2019s ruling that had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats, two judges declared the petitions as inadmissible. In its July 12, 2024 short order, eight out of 13 judges ruled that 39 out […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8918,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-court-and-crime"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8917"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8917\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8919,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8917\/revisions\/8919"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/8918"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}