Two SC judges declare review pleas in reserved seats case inadmissible

#judges #declare #review #pleas #reserved #seats #case #inadmissible

ISLAMABAD: Two judges on a 13 -member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday announced petitions to review the Supreme Court’s decision, which declared PTI eligible for safe seats.

Review requests were submitted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) on July 12, 2024 against the High Court on July 12, 2024, which formed Pakistan Tahrik (PTI) for legislation.

A 13 -member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the petitions filed in the Supreme Court in the case of reserved seats.

Among the two judges who rejected the review petitions are Justice Aisha Malik and Justice Akh Abbasi. Meanwhile, 11 judges have issued notices to all the parties involved in these reviews.

A notice has also been issued to the Attorney General of Pakistan under the Supreme Court order 27A. Separately, the Supreme Court has issued contempt of court notice to the election authorities for not implementing the July 12 decision.

Justice Aisha said she was rejecting the review requests and would present her reasons in this regard.

On this occasion, lawyers representing the ECP, the Muslim League (N, and the PPP had identified the alleged mistakes in the majority decision.

In an unexpected legal victory for the central opposition party, the Supreme Court ruled on July 12, 2024, that the party of imprisoned Omar Khan was eligible to allocate specific seats.

With the implementation of this decision, the PTI can become the only largest party in the National Assembly. However, the ECP did not implement the decision because of its objections to the decision.

Today’s hearing

During the proceedings, PML -N’s lawyer, Haris Azmat, argued that safe seats were allocated for a party that was not a party to the matter.

Justice Aisha responded to this point, saying that the answer was already provided in the preliminary decision. He raised more questions on the basis of the review request.

Azmat said that PTI had an army of lawyers but did not challenge these orders.

Justice Aisha stressed that the preliminary decision was made after hearing all the points in detail.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the bench had the order of the Returning Officer (RO) and the Election Commission was decided in front of him.

Justice Mandokil questioned whether the nation should be punished for the mistake of one party and should the Supreme Court ignore something that has come under its notice.

Justice Abbasi noted that the PML -N’s lawyer is re -presenting his case in the review petition and is not explaining the basis of review.

Justice Aisha inquired that the preliminary decision was implemented.

ECP lawyer Alexander Mohammad argued that a short decision was a “court order”.

He argued that the court’s decision provided relief to a party that was not a party to the matter, and termed it an important mistake that requires review of the decision.

Justice Aisha questioned the ECP about the implementation of the court’s decision. He also asked the ECP lawyer to explain how the Paul Organizing Authority was the affected party in the matter.

The ECP’s lawyer requested the court to allow him to present the ECP. At the same time, he admitted that the court’s decision was only partially implemented.

After that, Justice Aisha asked if the ECP had intended to “pick and select and select which part of the court’s decision.” He added that it seems that they will implement their choice, and not what they do not.

Justice Mandokhil said the ECP’s response must have refused to enforce the decision.

Justice Mandokhil added that he himself has no interest in the matter, and his interest is in the Supreme Court.

Justice Abbasi informed the forum that the contempt of court petition was also pending due to the implementation of a court decision. PTI lawyer Salman Akram Raja confirmed that a contempt of court petition has been fixed today.

After that, the Constitutional Bench adjourned the hearing on the review requests till 11:30 am.

In their dissent, Justice Aisha and Abbasi declared the three review petitions filed by the PML-N, the PPP, and the ECP as unacceptable and dismissed them. Justice Aisha said she would issue detailed reasons for her decision, to which Justice Abbasi said she was in the same opinion.

Despite the disagreement note, the Constitutional Bench has issued notices to the PML -N, the PPP, and the ECP on their requests for their review.