- Primary relief granted to PTI despite not being party: ECP.
- Says SC presumed certain facts which were not established.
- “ECP never given opportunity to rebut the presumptions.”
ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Wednesday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its short verdict in a reserved seats case involving the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).
“Primary relief has been granted to the PTI,” the poll watchdog stated in its petition, adding: “[…] when neither the party nor persons claiming to be its candidates for reserved seats, nor any independent-returned candidates approached the ECP, the high court or the Supreme Court to claim any seat out of seats reserved for women or non-Muslims.”
The “impugned judgement” passed by the top court with a majority on July 12, 2024, should be reviewed as it was “not in accordance with the Constitution, law and the precedents of this Court,” said the poll organising authority.
The development came after the Supreme Court, in its July 12 short order in the reserved seats case, allowed the former ruling party to have reserved seats in assemblies, paving the way for the party to potentially become the largest parliamentary party.
The petition read that the apex court, in its “impugned judgement”, has presumed certain facts which were not established, or run contrary to, the pleadings and admitted facts on record.
The ECP petition maintained that 80 independent candidates had decided to join the SIC and submitted relevant documents to declare their allegiance with the party.
It added that the SIC did not participate in the February 8 nationwide polls as a political party nor submitted any list of candidates for the reserved seats.
It further stated that there was no reason to provide an opportunity to 41 independents for the party’s association and the July 12 verdict was “discriminatory” and “in favour of a political party”.
The judgment “have clearly been passed without considering that such directions outrightly discriminate in favour of a single political party by extending concessions and relaxing certain Articles of the Constitutions, laws and rules only to the extent of that single party”.
It added that the ECP was never given an opportunity to “rebut the presumptions”.
Highlighting clause (c) of sub-Article 1 of Article 4 of the Constitution, the ECP said: “Certainly, the order under review brushes this constitutional provision and imposes its own will to those of the SIC members who had already made a choice by submitting their declaration in favour of SIC and duly joined it.”
The development came after the ECP’s partially implemented the top court’s verdict by notifying 39 out of 80 Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) and 93 provincial assemblies’ lawmakers as the Imran Khan-founded party’s members last month.
The commission had also approached the Supreme Court last month to seek legal and constitutional guidance on the matter of the remaining PTI lawmakers in the national and provincial assemblies.
The commission had maintained that it was facing difficulty in implementing the order as the “PTI at the moment has no organisational structure for confirmation of the statements of MNAs and MPAs, purportedly belong to PTI”.
In another development, two judges of the top court — Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan — had issued a 29-page dissenting note against the reserved seats’ verdict and opposed granting relief to the Imran-founded party last week.
The jurists also raised questions over an “infructuous” delay in the release of the SC’s detailed verdict despite the expiry of 15 days.
The federal government also expressed concerns over the delay in the issuance of the detailed verdict of the Supreme Court’s July 12 ruling while calling for a discourse on the dissenting note of two judges.