ISLAMABAD: As the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court took up hearing of the review petitions filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) against the apex court ruling, two judges on Tuesday declared the petitions as inadmissible.
The review petitions were filed against the apex court’s verdict of July 12, 2024, that had declared the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats.
A 13-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducted a hearing on the review petitions filed in the reserved seats case at the Supreme Court.
The two judges who dismissed the review petitions are Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi.
Meanwhile, 11 judges have issued notices to all the parties involved in these review petitions.
The attorney general of Pakistan has also been issued a notice under Supreme Court Order 27A. Separately, the top court has issued a contempt of court notice to the election authorities for not implementing the July 12 judgement.
Justice Ayesha said that she is rejecting the review petitions and will furnish her reasons in this regard.
On this occasion, lawyers representing the ECP, PML-N, and PPP had pointed out alleged errors in the majority ruling.
In an unexpected legal victory for the main opposition party, the Supreme Court on July 12, 2024, ruled that the party of incarcerated Imran Khan is eligible for the allocation of reserved seats.
Implementation of this verdict could make the PTI the single largest party in the National Assembly. However, the ECP did not implement the verdict owing to its objections to the ruling.
Today’s hearing
During the proceedings, PML-N’s lawyer Haris Azmat argued that reserved seats were allocated to one such party that was not even a party in the case.
Justice Ayesha responded to this point, stating that the answer to this was already provided in the initial judgement. She further questioned the basis of the review petition.
Azmat said that the PTI had an army of lawyers but they did not challenge those orders.
Justice Ayesha asserted that the initial decision was made after hearing all points in detail.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the bench had the Returning Officer’s (RO) order and the election commission’s decision before them.
Justice Mandokhail questioned if the nation should be punished for one party’s mistake and whether the Supreme Court should ignore something that came to its notice.
Justice Abbasi noted that the PML-N lawyer was re-arguing his case in the review petition and not specifying the grounds for review.
