- Barrister Ali Zafar argues SIC be given reserved seats under Article 103 Section C
- Five-member bench led by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim gives a unanimous decision on petitions
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday dismissed petitions of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to reject the party allocation of reserved women and minority seats.
A five-member PHC bench led by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and comprising Justices Ijaz Anwar, SM Attique Shah, Shakeel Ahmed and Syed Arshad Ali given unanimous decision on the petition as Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim read the reserved verdict.
Earlier, the high court reserved its decision after the lawyers’ concluded arguments in the case.
Barrister Ali Zafar during the hearing came to rostrum and apologized over being absent in the hearing yesterday. He said that the PTI’s election symbol ‘bat’ was taken before the election and the candidates have to contest the election as independent.
Yesterday, Attorney-General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan and the counsels for the PPP and ECP had completed their arguments.
AGP Awan had argued that a political party could get reserved seats only if it won a general one. ECP lawyer Sikander Basheer Momand had supported his arguments, stating that the SIC was a political party but not a parliamentary one.
Earlier this month 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. Meanwhile, the verdict was rejected by the PTI as unconstitutional.
On March 6, a two-member bench of the PHC had barred the oath-taking of lawmakers allotted the reserved seats. It issued a pre-admission to the ECP and all the respondents in the case, listing six questions that needed to be determined. The next day, a five-member larger bench extended the bar until March 13.
Barrister Ali Zafar argued before the Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday that reserved seats under Article 103 Section C should be given to the Sunni Unity Council.
On a question about the number of the seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies, the SIC lawyer said that the party have 86 seats in the NA, 90 seats in KP, 107 seats in Punjab, nine seats in Sindh and one member in Balochistan Assembly. “Overall, SIC have 226 seats in assemblies and it is entitled for 78 reserved seats,” he added.
Barrister Zafar submitted that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was deprived of its symbol days before general elections.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Election Commission (ECP) to deprive the PTI of its election symbol after which candidates were given different symbols to contest election as independents. Yet people voted for the PTI overwhelmingly.
Barrister Zafar said that after winning the election as independents, they joined the SIC.
Eighty-six members-elect of the National Assembly, 107 of the Punjab, 90 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, nine of Sindh and one of Balochistan assemblies joined the SIC.
The ECP was bound to allot 78 seats to the SIC, but it did not do so, he added.
The court inquired the counsel whether it was hearing the case of reserved seats of the entire country. Barrister Zafar replied that the petition was for the National and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies.
“The ECP is confused at differentiating between a parliamentary party and a poltical one,” he asserted. Upon the court observing that the SIC had not won any general seat in the Feb 8 elections, Zafar acknowledged the same and insisted that it still existed as a political party.
“[For example, if] I did not take part [in the elections] and 10 independent candidates joined me, then the number of [seats] would be 10,” he argued. However, the court pointed out that if he had not won even a single seat, the supposed 10 independents would not be able to join him.
It emphasised that the word “win” had been used in the law. “Did you not weaken the PTI’s case by joining the SIC?” the court wondered, at which Zafar recalled that the PTI had lost its electoral symbol and was “disqualified”.
The SIC counsel argued against allocating other political parties a greater number of seats “than they had won”. Here, Justice Ibrahim observed that the Parliament would then be “incomplete” if the reserved seats were not allocated. Zafar then replied, “This is why we are asking you to interpret the Constitution in a manner so that this vaccuum is not created.”
The SIC counsel said the ECP “could also issue another schedule” that would enable it to submit the list of candidates for reserved seats. The court then remarked, “If you add anything to zero, it equals to zero.”
“It would be a better interpretation that the election schedule for the reserve seats is released after the [general] elections. Section 104 says that a day would be fixed but does not specify when.”
“What law would be violated by alloting the SIC reserved seats?” he asked, adding that his client was only asking for its “right — no more or less than that”. Zafar then completed his arguments.
Subsequently, the PHC reserved its verdict on the matter.
