Pakistan's top court rules Imran Khan's party ineligible for reserved parliamentary seats
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's top court on Friday ruled the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party of jailed former prime minister Imran Khan is not entitled to reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures, setting aside an earlier judgment that had granted the party its share.
The Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench dismissed all review petitions filed by PTI and allied petitioners, reinstating the Peshawar High Court's earlier ruling rejecting the allocation of reserved seats to the party.
'The impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024 is set aside… and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored,' the short order read.
The dispute about the reserved seats stems from the February 8 general elections, where PTI candidates contested as independents after the party lost its electoral symbol for not holding valid intra-party elections, as required under the Elections Act.
Despite winning the most general seats in the national polls, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) ruled that PTI was ineligible for reserved seats for women and minorities in parliament, which are allocated based on proportional representation from among the seats won by political parties.
Last year in July, the Supreme Court reversed the ECP's decision, terming it unconstitutional and ordering the reserved seats to be allocated to PTI.
However, the government subsequently passed amendments to the Elections Act, 2017, in a move widely seen as targeting PTI's eligibility for reserved seats.
The revised law stipulated that only those candidates who had formally declared their party affiliation before the returning officer — and whose party had submitted lists of nominees for reserved seats within the legal deadline — would be entitled to such allocations.
Since PTI-backed candidates contested the February election as independents, and the party did not submit lists for reserved seats, the amendments effectively barred it from claiming a share.
With Friday's verdict, the apex court has now ruled that the independents backed by PTI in the February election cannot be treated as party nominees for the purpose of seat allocation.
Responding to the development, Khan's party described the short order as the 'funeral … of justice' in a social media post.
The government, on the other hand, welcomed the decision, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif congratulating its legal team's 'tireless efforts.'
'The decision has upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and law, and ensured correct interpretation of legal provisions,' he said in a statement.
'The opposition should now join the government in playing a constructive role for the country's development and prosperity,' he added.
The reserved seats in question will now be allocated to other political parties, including Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party and its coalition partners.
The top court's verdict will numerically strengthen the government while dealing yet another blow to Khan's PTI, which has faced legal and political challenges since the downfall of its administration in a no-confidence vote in April 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump Calls Being President a ‘Very Dangerous Profession'
US President Donald Trump on Friday reflected on threats to his life as he celebrated a court ruling that handed his administration sweeping power to pursue his policy agenda. Asked by a reporter about such threats, the Republican suggested that he is occasionally reminded of when he was grazed in the ear by a bullet at a Pennsylvania campaign rally on July 13, 2024. "I get that throbbing feeling every once in a while," Trump said. "But you know what? That's okay. This is a dangerous business." He made the comments during a wide-ranging, impromptu White House press conference scheduled to celebrate the US Supreme Court decision that handed him a major victory by curbing federal judges' power to impose nationwide rulings that block his policies. On Friday, the businessman-turned-politician described the presidency as riskier than some of the most perilous professions. "You have race car drivers as an example, 1/10 of 1% die. Bull riders, 1/10 of 1%. That's not a lot, but it's - people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. Okay? This is, this is a very dangerous profession." Four of the 45 US presidents have been assassinated. Several more presidents and candidates for the office have been shot. There have been several threats on Trump's life. Law enforcement officials said Trump also survived a September 15, 2024, assassination attempt while he was golfing on his course in West Palm Beach, Florida. The suspect in that incident faces five federal charges and has pleaded not guilty. The July shooting suspect was shot to death by Secret Service agents. One person at the Pennsylvania rally was killed; two others were wounded. The United States has also separately said Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps at one point attempted to assassinate Trump. Iran, whose nuclear facilities were bombed by US forces last weekend, has denied the allegation. Trump, serving his second term in office, has pushed an expansive vision of presidential power, sharply attacked his political foes and vowed retribution against them. The United States is experiencing its most sustained period of political violence since the 1970s. Reuters has documented more than 300 cases of politically motivated violent acts since Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
In Their Own Words: What Justices, Trump, and Groups Say About Courts and Birthright Citizenship
At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused former President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. Former President Trump expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges. The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump, and advocates regarding the court's 6–3 ruling over an effort by the former president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants. Barrett, Jackson on the judiciary's role: Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce the president's duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor's dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that. 'For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law–full stop,' Jackson wrote. Barrett called Jackson's arguments extreme and said her reasoning was 'not tethered to any doctrine whatsoever.' 'She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote. She later stated: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Sotomayor accuses Trump of gamesmanship: Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent, and the government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet shamefully this Court plays along.' Sotomayor also wrote that Trump's order is 'patently unconstitutional under settled law' and argued that granting relief through Friday's decision is 'nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.' 'The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort,' she wrote. A warning about what may be next: Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get US citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children stateless, risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs. Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote. Trump celebrates: Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it 'a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.' 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' The former president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts. Immigrant rights group responds: One of the groups that challenged Trump's order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump's order goes into effect. 'SCOTUS has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement toward justice continue,' said George Escobar, CASA's chief of programs and services.
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Pakistan's top court rules Imran Khan's party ineligible for reserved parliamentary seats
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's top court on Friday ruled the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party of jailed former prime minister Imran Khan is not entitled to reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures, setting aside an earlier judgment that had granted the party its share. The Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench dismissed all review petitions filed by PTI and allied petitioners, reinstating the Peshawar High Court's earlier ruling rejecting the allocation of reserved seats to the party. 'The impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024 is set aside… and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored,' the short order read. The dispute about the reserved seats stems from the February 8 general elections, where PTI candidates contested as independents after the party lost its electoral symbol for not holding valid intra-party elections, as required under the Elections Act. Despite winning the most general seats in the national polls, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) ruled that PTI was ineligible for reserved seats for women and minorities in parliament, which are allocated based on proportional representation from among the seats won by political parties. Last year in July, the Supreme Court reversed the ECP's decision, terming it unconstitutional and ordering the reserved seats to be allocated to PTI. However, the government subsequently passed amendments to the Elections Act, 2017, in a move widely seen as targeting PTI's eligibility for reserved seats. The revised law stipulated that only those candidates who had formally declared their party affiliation before the returning officer — and whose party had submitted lists of nominees for reserved seats within the legal deadline — would be entitled to such allocations. Since PTI-backed candidates contested the February election as independents, and the party did not submit lists for reserved seats, the amendments effectively barred it from claiming a share. With Friday's verdict, the apex court has now ruled that the independents backed by PTI in the February election cannot be treated as party nominees for the purpose of seat allocation. Responding to the development, Khan's party described the short order as the 'funeral … of justice' in a social media post. The government, on the other hand, welcomed the decision, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif congratulating its legal team's 'tireless efforts.' 'The decision has upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and law, and ensured correct interpretation of legal provisions,' he said in a statement. 'The opposition should now join the government in playing a constructive role for the country's development and prosperity,' he added. The reserved seats in question will now be allocated to other political parties, including Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party and its coalition partners. The top court's verdict will numerically strengthen the government while dealing yet another blow to Khan's PTI, which has faced legal and political challenges since the downfall of its administration in a no-confidence vote in April 2022.
