Reserved seats in assemblies: SC allows live-streaming of proceedings of review pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court allowed live-streaming of proceedings of review petitions on allotting reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The Court, however, dismissed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) three applications. First, application raised objection on the composition of bench. Second, there should be same numerical strength that had heard the original case; third, that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment.
An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday heard SIC's applications, filed through senior advocates, Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqui.
Following the announcement of the short order, Faisal thanked the bench, saying despite the fact his applications were dismissed, he is grateful to the bench. 'Very grateful to you,' he again said.
Before rising, Justice Jamal Khan told Faisal that his earlier conduct was unbecoming and unexpected. Faisal replied; 'I am ashamed of it.'
After the conclusion of Makhdoom Ali Khan's argument, when the bench announced that they will reassemble after 10 minutes to announce short order. Faisal Siddiqui along with Hamid Khan in a loud voice said; 'Court cannot deny them the right of rebuttal.' The bench then granted him and Hamid Khan the time to rebut the points raised by Makhdoom in his arguments.
Makhdoom, representing some MNAs of PML-N and PPP, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to SC's order de-seated, contended that the hearing of review petitions by the same bench under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been taken over by Article 191A of the constitution, adding now this provision will deal in constituting the constitutional benches. He said in view of Article 191A it is not practicable to place the review petition before the same bench that has delivered the judgment.
Makhdoom argued that the present bench is not of 11 members, but 13 members. He said all the available judges in the SC were consulted, two judges were not made part of the bench as they had heard this case in the Peshawar High Court, while two judges dismissed the review petitions, therefore, the present bench comprises 11 judges.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Election Commission faces troll post-reserved seats verdict
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Saturday rejected what it called "baseless propaganda" being circulated in certain media circles following the Supreme Court's constitutional bench's decision on reserved seats. The criticism arose after the Supreme Court's constitutional bench dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats. The decision allowed the ruling coalition, led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), to emerge as the single largest party and to consolidate a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Amid shifting political dynamics, the ECP reiterated its constitutional role and defended the legality of its decisions, saying the claims were contrary to facts and intended to mislead the public. In a statement, a spokesperson for the ECP said that some circles in the media were engaged in baseless propaganda against the Commission following the recent decision of the top court. The spokesperson said that the Commission declares this propaganda to be contrary to facts and based on falsehoods. The statement said that such elements were unjustifiably targeting the commission with criticism. It added that historical facts and numerous decisions of the superior judiciary provide irrefutable evidence that the Commission has always performed its duties in light of the Constitution and law. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the position of the Election Commission," it read. For example, in the Senate elections, the spokesperson said, the commission's stance regarding secret ballot and show of hands procedures, which was fully in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, was upheld by a Supreme Court bench headed by the then ex-CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed. In the case of the disqualification election in Daska, the official added, the Commission's decision was not only declared valid by the Supreme Court bench, led by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial but also recognized as a constitutional action. The Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had also endorsed the legal interpretation of the Commission concerning PTI's intra-party elections, the statement maintained. Furthermore, it said, in the case of the delisting of the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), when the Commission delisted APML for failing to conduct intra-party elections, and this decision was challenged by APML in the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the Commission's decision. Following this, the spokesperson said, the Commission delisted several other parties that failed to comply with the law, keeping the Supreme Court's decision in mind. The Supreme Court also accepted the Commission's appeal regarding Punjab Election Tribunals, rejecting the Lahore High Court's decision and upholding the Commission's stance. Similarly, it was maintained, in the recent case concerning reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council, first the Peshawar High Court and now the SC constitutional bench have upheld the Commission's position as constitutional and legal.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Birthright citizenship challenge still looms for Trump
Olga Urbina and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster participate in a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington on May 15, 2025. PHOTO:AFP Listen to article The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A host of policies That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. States challenge directive The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ECP rejects criticism after SC ruling on reserved seats
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rejected on Saturday what it called 'baseless propaganda' being circulated in certain media circles in response to renewed criticism following the Supreme Court's constitutional bench's decision on reserved seats. The criticism arose after the Supreme Court's constitutional bench dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats. This decision allowed the ruling coalition, led by the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), to emerge as the single largest party and to consolidate a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Amid shifting political dynamics, the ECP has reiterated its constitutional role and defended the legality of its decisions, saying the claims were contrary to facts and intended to mislead the public. In a statement, a spokesperson for ECP said that some circles in the media were engaged in baseless propaganda against the Commission following the recent decision of the top court. The spokesperson said that the Commission declares this propaganda to be contrary to facts and based on falsehoods. The statement said that such elements were unjustifiably targeting the Commission with criticism. It added that historical facts and numerous decisions of the superior judiciary provide irrefutable evidence that the Commission has always performed its duties in light of the Constitution and law. 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the position of the Election Commission,' it read. Read More: PTI loses court battle for reserved seats For example, in the Senate elections, the spokesperson said, the Commission's stance regarding secret ballot and show of hands procedures, which was fully in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, was upheld by a Supreme Court bench headed by the then ex-CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed. In the case of the disqualification election in Daska, the official added, the Commission's decision was not only declared valid by the Supreme Court bench, led by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial but also recognized as a constitutional action. The Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had also endorsed the legal interpretation of the Commission concerning PTI's intra-party elections, the statement maintained. Furthermore, it said, in the case of the delisting of the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), when the Commission delisted APML for failing to conduct intra-party elections, and this decision was challenged by APML in the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the Commission's decision. Following this, the spokesperson said, the Commission delisted several other parties that failed to comply with the law, keeping the Supreme Court's decision in mind. The Supreme Court also accepted the Commission's appeal regarding Punjab Election Tribunals, rejecting the Lahore High Court's decision and upholding the Commission's stance. Also Read: PM extends olive branch to PTI amid reserve seats setback Similarly, it was maintained, in the recent case concerning reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council, first the Peshawar High Court and now the SC constitutional bench have upheld the Commission's position as constitutional and legal. 'All these and many other judicial decisions are undeniable proof that the Election Commission does not alter its decisions due to political pressure, public clamor, or for cheap popularity,' the spokesperson said, adding the ECP rather performs its duties solely based on constitutional requirements, legal jurisdiction, and evidence. The ECP said that it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Commission is a constitutional institution that is not intimidated by the unscrupulous tactics of any political party or vested interest group. Therefore, it concluded, it is in no way appropriate to hold the Commission responsible for shortcomings and weaknesses.
