SC’s Constitutional Bench sets aside July 12, 2024 ruling in reserved seats case; restores PHC decision; all 9 review petitions accepted
PTI will not be entitled for reserved seats after verdict
ISLAMABAD ( WEB NEWS )
The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Friday dismissed the petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in the reserved seats case, declaring that the party will not be eligible for them in the national and provincial assemblies.
Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, a 10-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed the hearing on Friday, after which petitions were accepted by a majority of seven judges, with Justices Aminuddin Khan, Mussarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Amir Farooq and Aleem Hakim Najafi voting in favour.
Following the verdict, the decision of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) was upheld, while the apex court’s July 2024 judgment was set aside. Accordingly, the PTI’s petitions were dismissed, making the party ineligible for the reserved seats.
Justice Aminuddin Khan announced the short order; meanwhile the detailed reasons to be given later on.
“Today, at the verge of conclusion, one of the members of the larger Bench (Justice Salahuddin Panhwar) for certain reasons, recused to continue his sitting in this Bench and contributed his separate note, therefore, the Bench was reconstituted with all the available members of the Constitutional Bench. Initially this Constitutional Bench was constituted for hearing of the aforesaid review petitions by 13 Judges of this Court but two of them (Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi) on the first date of hearing have dismissed all the review petitions” the short order said.
“For detailed reasons to be recorded later, subject to amplification or elucidation as may be deemed appropriate, by majority of 7
(Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Senior Judge, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi), all Civil Review Petitions are allowed C.R.P. No.312/2024, etc and the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024 is set aside, as a consequence thereof, Civil Appeal Nos. 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored. Whereas, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, for reasons to be recorded later, partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of 41 seats” the short order said.
“Whereas Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, for reasons to be recorded later, also reviewed the judgment and allowed the review petitions with the rider that since the factual controversy or disputed questions of facts neither could be resolved by the Peshawar High Court nor this Court in original or review jurisdiction, therefore, directions are issued to the ECP to examine and consider the nomination papers/declaration and other relevant documents of all 80 returned candidates by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats within 15 days from receiving the copy of this Short Order” read Justice Aminuddin Khan.
On Friday a 10-member larger constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the matter after Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself from the originally constituted 11-member bench.
Initially, a full 13-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case in May.
Later, Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi declared the petitions inadmissible and withdrew. Their exit reduced the bench’s strength, with Justice Panhwar’s departure further narrowing it.
Justice Panhwar cited lawyer Hamid Khan’s objection to his inclusion on the bench—linked to the 26th Constitutional Amendment—as the reason for his withdrawal. In a written note, he emphasised the importance of judicial impartiality and public confidence in the bench. He acknowledged being personally hurt by the objection but stressed that his decision was rooted in judicial integrity, not personal sentiment.
Hamid Khan welcomed the recusal, prompting a sharp reaction from Justice Aminuddin, who reminded the court that arguments were ongoing from another SIC lawyer.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail criticised Hamid’s conduct, suggesting that his approach had disrupted the proceedings. Despite not being formally entitled to present arguments, Hamid was granted time out of courtesy, which drew frustration from some judges.
During the hearing, a heated exchange took place between Justice Jamal Mandokhail and senior lawyer Hamid Khan.
As the proceedings continued, Hamid Khan argued that there were precedents indicating that the court could not hear this case.
In response, Justice Mandokhail asked, “Where is it written that we cannot hear the case? Show us in the Supreme Court Rules how we are not allowed to conduct this hearing.”
Also on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Salahuddin Panhwar stepped aside from the Constitutional Bench that was hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, following an objection raised by senior lawyer Hamid Khan.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan have filed review petitions against last year’s Supreme Court July 12, 2024 ruling that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was entitled to reserved seats for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.
In March 2024, the Peshawar High Court had dismissed the Sunni Ittehad Council’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to reject the party allocation of reserved women and minority seats.
In a 4-1 verdict, the electoral watchdog ruled that the SIC was not entitled to claim quota for reserved seats “due to having non-curable legal defects and violation of a mandatory provision of submission of party list for reserved seats, which is the requirement of law”.
The SIC — joined by PTI-backed independents who won the elections sans their electoral symbol — had filed the petition through its chairman, Sahibzada Muhammad Hamid Raza, seeking directives of the court for the ECP to allocate reserved seats to the council based on their strength in the national and provincial assemblies.
The commission had also decided to distribute the seats among other parliamentary parties, with the PML-N and the PPP becoming major beneficiaries. The decision was challenged by the PTI in the top court.
On July 13, the apex court, in a unique majority verdict, declared the PTI eligible to receive reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the national and provincial assemblies, giving it a new lease of life in the legislature by declaring it to be a parliamentary party.
However, the ruling was not 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.