ISLAMABAD (PEN) : The Supreme Court resumed hearings on Thursday in the high-profile review petitions challenging the verdict that awarded reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The 11-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, engaged in sharp debate over whether the judiciary exceeded its mandate in interpreting constitutional provisions.
Judges Raise Concerns Over Judicial Overreach
During the live-streamed proceedings, Justice Musarrat Hilali expressed strong reservations about the original ruling, arguing that it incorrectly defined voting as a fundamental right.
“Fundamental rights are inherent by birth. The right to vote, however, is not; it is granted by law, contingent on age and other qualifications,” she remarked. “This decision effectively rewrote the Constitution.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar further questioned the limits of judicial authority, asking:
“Can we as judges rewrite the Constitution? PTI has an array of experienced legal minds—how did such critical errors escape their scrutiny?”
Legal Counsel Defends Majority Decision
Faisal Siddiqui, senior counsel, defended the initial verdict, noting that multiple judges—including Justice Qazi Faez Isa—had supported the recognition of independent candidates as affiliated with PTI.
“Even the Supreme Court consists of great legal minds. If everything were so straightforward, what would be the need for the court?” Siddiqui said.
He reminded the bench that 11 judges acknowledged the link between the independent candidates and PTI, adding:
“To the extent of 39 candidates, both I and Justice Qazi Faez Isa concurred with the majority.”
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel also noted that Justice Yahya Afridi had clearly stated PTI’s entitlement to reserved seats during earlier proceedings.
Debates Over Parliamentary Group Status
The hearing also touched upon the status of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), under whose banner several independent candidates later aligned. SIC’s legal representative argued that some review applications were non-compliant with Supreme Court procedural rules and should be dismissed. He clarified that the party’s symbol is the horse, but its key figure, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, contested elections independently.
Justice Hilali questioned this approach:
“Sahibzada Hamid Raza’s political party has existed since 2013. If a party contests elections, it forms a parliamentary group—why then did he not contest under his own party’s banner?”
Justice Mandokhel acknowledged that this issue was not central to the matter under review, though clarity on SIC’s role was sought.
Hearing Adjourned Until June 16
As the session concluded, Justice Aminuddin Khan granted Siddiqui more time to complete his arguments. Siddiqui requested at least two more hearings, stating:
“It seems as though I am the one who filed the review. All the questions are being directed at me.”
The court adjourned further proceedings until *June 16*, with expectations that more clarity will emerge in the coming sessions.
