Live Updates: Supreme Court declares Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf eligible for reserved seats

Unity government has been considering calling the Senate and National Assembly meetings after Ashura Muharram, the PML-N sources claimed.

Law Minister Azam Tarar proposed to the PML-N leadership to call a meeting of both houses and PML-N senior leaders and MPs instructed to stay in Islamabad after Ashura.

The final decision to convene a meeting of the Senate and the National Assembly will be taken tomorrow (Monday) in a meeting chaired by Nawaz Sharif

Sources claimed when the meeting is called, the decision related to specific seats will be discussed in both houses.

“The government is considering formulating a strategy with Parliament before the review appeal,” a government source claimed.

On Friday, the SC full bench declared the reserved seats for SIC to the PTI as a political party with an 8-5 majority verdict.

Following the Supreme Court verdict declaring the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for the reserved seats, it is poised to become the majority political party in parliament.

Sources say that the number of PTI lawmakers in the National Assembly is likely to be 92, as there are 84 members of the Sunni Alliance and eight independent. 

After the PTI gets the 22 reserved seats it lost earlier, its strength in the Lower House is likely to swell up to 114 members. 

On the other hand, there are 108 members of the PML-N in the National Assembly, PPP has 68, MQM 21, JUI-F eight, PML-Q five and IPP four members.

Also Read: Supreme Court declares Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf eligible for reserved seats

The Supreme Court’s decision on the allocation of reserved seats in the Punjab Assembly has sparked controversy and confusion.

According to Clause D of Article 51, reserved seats for women and minorities are meant to be allocated only to parties that have submitted lists to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

However, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) neither applied for nor challenged the allocation of these seats in the ECP.

PTI's primary argument was that its candidates, who had joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), were now entitled to SIC’s reserved seats. Critics argue that the Supreme Court, rather than interpreting Articles 51 and 106, effectively rewrote them.

This decision could lead to further legal complications if PTI members who joined SIC decide to rejoin PTI in the future. The relief granted to PTI was not even part of their original claim.

Typically, when the Supreme Court reviews cases under Section 185, it is limited to petitions that ascend from lower courts.

In this instance, the Supreme Court overturned the Peshawar High Court's judgment without hearing from the members of the reserved seats allocated to other parties. The 80 members mentioned in the ruling did not appear in court or claim affiliation with PTI.

This decision has been criticized for not aligning with the constitution, which places the prerogative of such matters with Parliament. It has been described as a unique and unprecedented ruling that could undermine the value of political parties contesting elections under specific symbols.

Independent candidates may now use this decision to switch parties, creating a new system that lacks a basis in law and constitution.

The ruling has raised concerns about political parties and their influence over judicial decisions, highlighting a growing trend where social media teams and political allegiances impact legal outcomes.

In the latest development in the Punjab Assembly, the allocation of 27 reserved and minority seats has significantly impacted the party positions.

Despite the Sunni Ittehad Council gaining these seats, the government alliance, led by PML-N, continues to hold a substantial majority.

The total number of seats for the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in the Punjab Assembly has now reached 205. This includes 164 general seats, 5 seats reserved for minorities, and 36 seats for women.

The Sunni Ittehad Council, which previously had 104 members, now has a total of 131 seats after the addition of the reserved seats. This increase, however, still leaves them behind the PML-N in terms of overall strength.

The Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) has a total of 14 seats in the Punjab Assembly. This includes 10 general seats, 1 seat from an independent member who joined them, and 3 seats reserved for women.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) holds 10 seats, which includes 8 general seats and 2 seats reserved for women.

The Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) has a total of 6 seats, including 5 general seats and 1 seat reserved for women.

The Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), the Pakistan Muslim League-Zia (PML-Z), and the Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen (MWM) each have one seat in the Punjab Assembly.

The Punjab Assembly, with a total of 371 seats, now has 369 members after the inclusion of the reserved seats. One constituency, PP-269, has yet to hold an election. Additionally, Mian Aslam Iqbal, the successful candidate from the Sunni Ittehad Council in Constituency 171 of Lahore, has not yet taken his oath.

In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the allocation of reserved seats, Justice Yahya Afridi issued a separate note referring the matter of independent candidates joining the Sunni Ittehad Council to the election commission.

Justice Afridi emphasized that every candidate of the National and provincial assemblies who submitted an affidavit and confirmation certificate of affiliation with the PTI will be considered a PTI candidate. Consequently, seats reserved for women and non-Muslims will be allocated to the PTI in the same ratio.

Justice Afridi directed the election commission to allot seats for women and non-Muslims to the parties in the National and provincial Assemblies based on this decision. 

Also Read: Supreme Court declares Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf eligible for reserved seats

He expressed deep concern over the actions and omissions of the election commission, although these actions were not challenged in the appeals before the court. 

In a contrasting perspective, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan disagreed with the majority decision and expressed their dissent in separate notes. 

Also Read: SC verdict: PTI to become largest party in National Assembly

Justice Khan upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court, dismissing appeals, petitions, and miscellaneous applications. Justice Naeem Akhtar, aligning with Justice Aminuddin Khan, also supported the Peshawar High Court's decision, dismissing all miscellaneous petitions. 

The Supreme Court's decision, marked by differing opinions among the justices, now tasks the Election Commission with implementing the allocation of reserved seats as directed, ensuring that PTI receives its proportional share of seats for women and non-Muslims based on the confirmed affiliations.

Following the Supreme Court verdict declaring the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for the reserved seats, it is poised to become the majority political party in parliament.

Sources say that the number of PTI lawmakers in the National Assembly is likely to be 92, as there are 84 members of the Sunni Alliance and eight independent. 

After the PTI gets the 22 reserved seats it lost earlier, its strength in the Lower House is likely to swell up to 114 members. 

On the other hand, there are 108 members of the PML-N in the National Assembly, PPP has 68, MQM 21, JUI-F eight, PML-Q five and IPP four members.

Also Read: Supreme Court declares Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf eligible for reserved seats

After the Supreme Court's decision regarding the allotment of reserved seats, the PML-N, PPP, MQM, and JUI have been stripped of 77 additional seats reserved for women and minorities. 

On SC orders, the election commission had suspended 77 reserved seats belonging to the Sunni Ittehad Council on May 13. The disputed seats include 22 seats of the National Assembly and 55 in provincial assemblies.

In the National Assembly, the disputed seats for women include 11 from Punjab, and eight seats from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Moreover, three reserved seats for minorities are also included in the suspended seats. Out of the 22 contentious seats in the National Assembly, 14 were allocated to the PML-N, five to PPP and three to the JUI. 

Also Read: Sunni Ittehad Council reserved seats case - a timeline

In the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, 21 reserved seats for women and four seats for minorities have been suspended. The JUI-F had been allocated 10 seats and PML-N seven additional seats, while the PPP got seven seats and ANP one.

In the Punjab Assembly, 24 reserved seats for women and three minority seats have been suspended post the Supreme Court verdict. These were divided with 23 going to the PML-N, two PPP, and the PML-Q and the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party one each in Punjab.

In the Sindh Assembly, two reserved seats for women and one for minorities have been suspended. Out of these, the PPP had been allocated two and MQM one reserved seat.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Faisal Javed has said that a decision will be taken today on whether the country needs elections or not.

While talking to the media outside the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) in Islamabad, Faisal Javed said that this case is a case of protecting the rights of the voters, are the words of the voters accepted or not.

Faisal Javed said that the purpose of taking away the election symbol is to take away the rights of the voters.

In the election, the voters voted for the PTI leader and these seats should go either to PTI or to the Sunni Ittehad Council.

As the Supreme Court announces its reserved verdict on the contentious case concerning the allocation of reserved seats for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), we shed light on the timeline of the litigation. 

February 21: The Sunni Ittehad Council initially applied to the Election Commission of Pakistan for allocation of reserved seats.

February 27: The PML -N, PPP and MQM also requested to be parties in the case.

March 4: The election commission ruled that the SIC was not entitled to the reserved seats and allocated those seats to other parties. This decision was contested by one member of the election commission, who disagreed with the redistribution of the seats.

March 6: In response, the SIC approached the Peshawar High Court, seeking to overturn the election commission's ruling.

March 14: Their petitions were dismissed by a five-member large bench of the Peshawar High Court, which unanimously upheld the election commission's decision.

April 2: Undeterred, the Sunni Ittehad Council filed a petition in the Supreme Court.

May 6: The case was initially heard by a three-member bench headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. During this hearing, the Supreme Court suspended the election commission's decision to the extent of allocating additional seats to other parties and referred the matter to a larger bench due to its constitutional significance. 

Also Read: SIC reserved seats case: Supreme Court to announce verdict today

May 31: A full court was constituted to hear the case, with Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa heading the proceedings.

June 3: The full court began hearing the petitions of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

July 9: After extensive deliberations, the court reserved its judgement. 

On Thursday, the larger bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, deliberated on the matter once again and decided to pronounce the judgement on Friday. A consultation session of the full court under the chairmanship of the CJP was held in Islamabad, which was attended by all the judges of the 13-member bench, as per the sources. 

A full court consultation session was held on Wednesday also under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Isa, where all 13 judges participated. During the meeting, each judge provided their opinion based on the arguments presented by the lawyers and the records of all parties involved in the case. 

Sources indicate that the judges engaged in extensive discussions on important legal questions and thoroughly examined the arguments and evidence. The opinions of the judges were meticulously gathered on each point of the case.

Security Measures

Security was significantly heightened around the Supreme Court premises. Additional police personnel were deployed along key routes leading to the court to ensure the safety and security of all participants. Access routes such as the path from Serena Chowk to the Red Zone have been blocked, and entry from Nadra Chowk to the Red Zone is being strictly controlled, requiring identification.

The Supreme Court has set aside the Peshawar High Court and election commission verdicts and declared the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats in the case of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

The 8-5 majority verdict was announced by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, who is heading a 13-member full court of the Supreme Court. The proceedings are being broadcast live. All the judges have recognized the PTI as a legal and competent party. 

The Supreme Court declared that the deprivation of an election symbol does not terminate the right of a party to participate in elections. The PTI was and is a political party. The election commission submitted the data of 80 candidates to the Supreme Court. 

It further said that the 39 candidates whose affiliation was shown with the PTI will remain the successful candidates of the PTI. The remaining 41 candidates can also submit their affidavits within 15 days that they were candidates of the same party. The PTI has been ordered to submit its list for reserved seats within 15 days. 

Also Read: Sunni Ittehad Council reserved seats case - a timeline

The order stated that if the election commission and the PTI want an explanation, they can approach the court. The Supreme Court declared the election on additional reserved seats null and void, adding that the PTI will get reserved seats in the National and provincial assemblies. 

It ordered the election commission to issue notifications of reserved seats as per the PTI's list. The decision will be applied to Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh Assembly as well, the Supreme Court ruled. 

Dissenting notes

Later, Justice Yahya Afridi disagreed with the majority decision and wrote his own separate decision. He said it was not right to declare independent those who submitted themselves as PTI candidates. These members could not be declared as members of any other party, Justice Afridi wrote.

The chief justice also read out the dissenting note of Justice Jamal Mandokhel, according to which the Sunni Ittehad Council did not contest elections nor did it submit the list of reserved seats, hence it was not eligible for the seats. No candidate said they went to the Sunni Ittehad Council because of some confusion, it added. 

Also Read: PTI reacts to SIC reserved seats verdict

The dissenting note upheld the election commission's decision on reserved seats, but also accused the commission of misinterpreting the Supreme Court decision. However, the dissenting note partially restored the decision of the election commission and the Peshawar High Court.

It declared the orders void to the extent of not counting the PTI as a parliamentary party eligible for the reserved seats. Those who showed their commitment to the PTI even on the last day were candidates of the same party, the note added. 

All the judges recognized the PTI as a legal and competent party, adding that 11 judges agreed to the extent of the PTI's existence as a party for various reasons. 

The note further said the PTI exists as a parliamentary party, adding that no candidate said they moved to the Sunni Ittehad Council because of some confusion. The judge also referred the issue of joining the SIC of independent candidates to the election commission.

Justice Aminuddin and Justice Naeem Akhtar dismissed the petitions of the Sunni Ittehad Council and upheld the complete decision of the Peshawar High Court. 

The eight judges part of the majority decision were Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Azhar Ali Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan. 

Security measures

In anticipation of the high-profile verdict, security has been significantly tightened around the Supreme Court premises. Additional police personnel have been deployed on routes leading to the court to ensure the safety and security of all those involved.

Key routes, including the path from Serena Chowk to the Red Zone, have been blocked. Access from Nadra Chowk to the Red Zone is also being controlled, with entry restricted to those who can provide identification. 

The larger bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, deliberated on the matter once again on Thursday and decided to pronounce the judgment on Friday. A consultation session of the full court under the chairmanship of the CJP was held in Islamabad, which was attended by all the judges of the 13-member bench, as per the sources. 

A full court consultation session was held on Wednesday also under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Isa, where all 13 judges participated. During the meeting, each judge provided their opinion based on the arguments presented by the lawyers and the records of all parties involved in the case. 

Sources indicate that the judges engaged in extensive discussions on important legal questions and thoroughly examined the arguments and evidence. The opinions of the judges were meticulously gathered on each point of the case.

Further consultations among the judges on the bench were anticipated before issuing the short order. If a consensus is reached, the final decision could be delivered as soon as possible.

On July 9, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the case related to the reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council. 

During the hearing, the Sunni Ittehad Council lawyer said the party members were not independent, the election commission had recognized the SIC as a parliamentary party.

Justice Mandokhel remarked that at the time of distribution of the reserved seats, the SIC members were probably independent, to which the lawyer said the independent candidates had become part of the SIC at the time of the allocation of the reserved seats, which can be proved by the election commission records. 

Justice Irfan Saadat remarked that Faisal Siddiqui's party had got a bonus, as his party did not contest the election but got 90 seats. Justice Minallah asked if the election was conducted in normal conditions and transparently. "Why did a major political party have to send its candidates to another party?" he asked. 

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's women's wing president Kanwal Shauzab's lawyer Salman Akram Raja alleged that the election commission was concealing records, and the documents it submitted in court were unreliable. 

The lawyer said the reserved seats were meant for the Sunni Ittehad Council, adding it is unconstitutional to make general seat mandatory for joining a party, Justice Minallah asked if the court should not correct the mistakes made in the election process. Salman Akram Raja said the court can issue any order to implement the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in the case related to the reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council. 

A 13-member full court bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case related to the reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan were part of the full court. 

The hearing

During the hearing, Faisal Siddiqui, the SIC's lawyer, said that Balochistan Awami Party did not win any seats in 2018 but got three reserved seats. The election commission submitted a malicious response regarding the party, and the matter before the commission was taken up before the Supreme Court. The commission is denying its own documents. 

On being asked by Justice Jamal Mandokhel, the lawyer said the ECP decision on BAP was based on law.

Justice Mandokhel remarked that there was a difference between a political party and a parliamentary party, adding that the decisions made within parliament are made by the parliamentary party, which cannot be made by a political party. A parliamentary party is not bound to accept the decision of the political party, as it is not bound to implement the decision of the political party while voting for the prime minister.

Justice Mandokhel inquired that if a party wins seats in all provinces but one, what will happen? The lawyer replied that the Balochistan Awami Party won seats in other provinces but not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, adding that the attitude of the election commission was non-transparent.

On this, the CJP asked if he wanted the Supreme Court to take judicial notice? "If not, why are you mentioning it? If you want to take up a case regarding the 2018 elections, then so be it. But the Supreme Court will not rely on the 2018 elections."

To this, lawyer Faisal Siddiqui suggested the apex court take notice if the election commission is adopting discriminating attitude.

Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui argued the court take into consideration the unfair actions of the election commission, adding the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F constitution prohibited inclusion of minorities.

The CJP asked the lawyer whether only Sunnis can be included in the Sunni Ittehad Council. The lawyer replied that all Muslims can be part of the part. Justice Isa remarked that the SIC should not get any seat on this basis. "If the party has no general seat, then according to your arguments, how can you get reserved seats?" The lawyer said reserved seats cannot be given according to the principle of disproportionate representation, adding that those who being called independent are not independent.

The CJP remarked that the lawyer was giving arguments against himself, to which the lawyer replied that it was a separate matter that he could not convince the court, but their case was the same as he was arguing. Justice Isa inquired whether the PTI can be given the reserved seats based on the lawyer's arguments, to which Siddiqui said the Sunni Ittehad Council is present in parliament, it will get the seats. 

Justice Minallah said no one was arguing on the right to vote and voters, while the election commission is not giving data to prove its good intentions that the elections were transparent, as a political party was excluded from the electoral process. He further said that Article 51 ensures the rights of political parties, adding that there were questions on the 2018 elections also.

"Should the same be allowed to happen again because in 2018 also, questions were raised on the election commission."

The Sunni Ittehad Council lawyer said the party members were not independent, the election commission had recognized the SIC as a parliamentary party.

Justice Mandokhel remarked that at the time of distribution of the reserved seats, the SIC members were probably independent, to which the lawyer said the independent candidates had become part of the SIC at the time of the allocation of the reserved seats, which can be proved by the election commission records. 

Justice Irfan Saadat remarked that Faisal Siddiqui's party had got a bonus, as his party did not contest the election but got 90 seats. Justice Minallah asked if the election was conducted in normal conditions and transparently. "Why did a major political party have to send its candidates to another party?" he asked. 

Faisal Siddiqui said it was to be seen how the independent candidates joined the political parties. The parliamentary leader of the party must be informed regarding the inclusion of independent candidates, and the will of the independent candidate should also be considered. According to the ECP rules, if someone is a member of a political party, they should get the symbol of that political party. "One cannot join a new party without leaving the previous one," he explained. 

Later, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's women's wing president Kanwal Shauzab's lawyer Salman Akram Raja alleged that the election commission was concealing records, and the documents it submitted in court were unreliable. The ticket of PTI Nazariati was also withdrawn. He said he was trying to prove the election commission tried to suppress its own record, and did not submit the complete documents.

Justice Mandokhel asked if it is correct to be a part of the Sunni Ittehad Council while being part of the PTI? Raja replied that the election commission declared the candidates independent through a wrong decision, after which he joined the Sunni Ittehad Council. 

Justice Mandokhel asked if the PTI did not want reserved seats. The lawyer said the reserved seats were meant for the Sunni Ittehad Council, adding it is unconstitutional to make general seat mandatory for joining a party, Justice Minallah asked if the court should not correct the mistakes made in the election process. Salman Akram Raja said the court can issue any order to implement the Constitution.

The hearing of the reserved seats case in the Supreme Court was completed with this. The full court bench then reserved its decision.

On May 6, the Supreme Court suspended the Peshawar High Court's decision of March 14 as well as the Election Commission of Pakistan's decision of March 1 to deprive the Sunni Ittehad Council of seats reserved for women and minorities. It was sent to a larger bench.