Timeline has to be set by court when constitutional timeline is not met: PTI counsel
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI)'s counsel told the Constitutional Bench that the majority judgment in reserved seats has not violated the Constitution by extending time for 41 independents to join the PTI.
Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that eight judges of the Supreme Court have dealt with the coercive measure adopted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the PTI candidates had opted to contest elections as independent.
An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the ECP. The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's You Tube channel.
Raja argued that the timeline has to be set by the Court when constitutional timeline is not met. The eight judges considering all the facts and the precedents gave relief to the PTI.
Justice Amin inquired when the Court hearing an appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) under Article 185 of the Constitution then can use Article 187. Raja, citing cases of NRO and extension to the Chief of Army Staff, argued that deviation had taken place in the past as well, but the Supreme Court cured them. He said judgment of Justice Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez also recognised the deviation and cured it by declaring that 39 independents are PTI candidates and entitled to reserved seats.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said to extent of 39 independents they had done that on the basis of undisputed facts. Raja contended that the majority judgment had also looked at all the facts and the precedents and came up with two different sets of relief, adding the factual finding cannot be undone.
Justice Amin said till date, none of the 80 independents has disputed that he or she has not joined the SIC independently. Justice Mandokhail noted that the elections process starts by filing nomination papers, adding the candidates who have mentioned in their nomination papers independent then why not they accept those nomination papers?
At the onset of the proceedings, Raja explained why the PTI candidates contested general elections 2024 as independents. He submitted that after the Supreme Court's judgment on the PTI's intra-party elections, the ECP disallowed party symbol to them, and also derecognised the PTI, adding the ECP in its 9th February order declared all the PTI candidates as independents, including those who had contested on PTI tickets and won the elections.
He told that there was great confusion at time as they were told that all the PTI candidates would be treated as independents, 'therefore our returned candidates had joined the SIC, as we had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) before us that a party which had not contested elections and won any seats, but was distributed reserved seats.' 'We had the understanding that ultimately the will of the people would prevail.'
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the BAP had contested the election and secured seats, adding it had some members in the Balochistan provincial assembly and five in the Senate, if not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Raja replied that they had assumption that the BAP party had no seats in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies.
Justice Mandokhail said despite various difficulties some of the PTI members contested on the PTI tickets and became MNAs. He questioned when PTI was in the National Assembly then why 80 independent returned candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). He asked whether those six MNAs had claimed reserved seats on their strength?
Raja replied that till 11th February 2024, the ECP treated them (the six MNAs) also as independents. 'If six lawmakers had been recognised as PTI then the independent candidates could have joined the PTI instead of the SIC.'
Justice Mandokhail then asked Raja that you filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (LHC),praying that you should be declared as PTI candidate instead of independent.
Raja informed that his petition was disposed of by a divisional bench of LHC, which included Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, without any order and the matter was remanded to the ECP. 'I came to the Supreme Court against that order I have challenged the vires of Explanation of Rule 94 of The Election Rules, but the SC office returned my petition on 2nd February, 2024 by raising objections.'
Justice Mandokhail then asked him whether you or any of the PTI leaders till date has challenged that order? Raja responded: 'We came to the Supreme Court not once, but twice, but our application was returned by the Registrar's Office, and we were told that the Supreme Court will not entertain any election related application.' Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned why not any of the PTI leaders filed any chamber appeal. The case was adjourned until today (Thursday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
PTI says budget will enrich elite at the cost of masses in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Friday launched a scathing attack on the recently passed Federal Budget for 2025-26, denouncing it as a 'banker's blueprint' crafted to enrich the elite at the expense of the masses. Speaking at a presser, the opposition leader in National Assembly Omar Ayub, flanked by Asad Qaiser, Gohar Ali Khan, and other senior party leaders, condemned the budget as a 'giveaway written by a banker, for his banker buddies'. 'This is not a people's budget; it's a banker's business plan,' Ayub said. 'The hybrid regime plans to borrow another Rs6,300 billion from local banks, allowing four or five bank owners to graduate from billionaires to trillionaires. Meanwhile, the nation sinks deeper into debt.' Ayub accused the government of both fiscal cruelty and political repression, warning that the prices of essential commodities such as flour, sugar, and lentils would soar under the new fiscal measures. 'They couldn't even face the opposition in Parliament. Both the finance minister and the prime minister evaded accountability.' Moreover, Ayub claimed that former MNA Ijaz Chaudhry was abducted in the dead of night, while former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi remain in jail as hostages of political vendetta. He said several senior PTI leaders including Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Omar Cheema, Hassaan Niazi, and Yasmin Rashid and others were imprisoned without bail. However, Asad Qaiser accused the government of reducing Parliament to a rubber stamp. MNA Sanaullah Mastikhel criticising the powerful energy lobbies, alleged that Independent Power Producers (IPPs) were 'untouchable profiteers' who have plundered the nation for decades under successive governments. 'These IPPs have become a cartel, bleeding the country dry through inflated capacity payments and ironclad contracts. They get paid whether they produce electricity or not while the average Pakistani is left in the dark, both literally and financially.' Masti accused the government of shielding these corporate giants while the public suffers from rolling blackouts and sky-high electricity bills. 'Every time the people tighten their belts, these energy barons loosen theirs. And now, with this budget, the same crooks are getting even more incentives. It is daylight robbery, institutionalised.' He demanded an open audit of all IPP contracts and called for a complete overhaul of the power sector. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant win'
In a 5-4 unsigned opinion the top US court said that some of New York's restrictions violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. PHOTO: AFP The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies but it left unresolved the issue of whether he can limit birthright citizenship. The Republican president welcomed the ruling and said his administration can now seek to proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship that he said "have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis". "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address its legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SL court stops state land grab from Tamils
Sri Lanka's top court halted Friday a government move to acquire land in northern regions still reeling from the consequences 16 years after the end of a decades-long civil war. Sri Lanka's north bore the brunt of the conflict in the 37-year-long Tamil separatist war, which was brought to a bloody conclusion in May 2009. Many among the Tamil minority lost their land title deeds during the years of displacement, and the area was also hit by the 2004 Asian tsunami. The Supreme Court order concerning nearly 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares) of land came a day after UN human rights chief Volker Turk ended a three-day visit, during which he urged the authorities to return private lands still occupied by troops. The UN estimates that at least 100,000 people died in the war, and that 40,000 of them from the Tamil minority were killed by troops in the final months of the conflict.
