Pakistan SC live-streams constitutional bench for first time, grills SIC over reserved seats

The Supreme Court of Pakistan live-streamed proceedings of a full constitutional bench on Monday for the first time, as it resumed hearing review petitions challenging an earlier ruling that declared the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats in the National Assembly.

The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justices Musarrat Hilali, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Shahid Bilal, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Afghan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar, Aamer Farooq, Ali Baqar Najafi, and Yahya Afridi, raised pointed questions about the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) eligibility to claim those seats -- particularly given that the party did not contest the general elections.

The case under review stems from an order issued in July 2024, in which eight out of 13 justices ruled that 39 of 80 independent MNAs were, in fact, returned candidates of the PTI, positioning it as the single largest party in the National Assembly.

However, the ruling is yet to be implemented by the National Assembly, while the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised formal objections. Review petitions were subsequently filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and the ECP.

Judges question SIC’s eligibility and election participation

At the outset of Monday’s hearing, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned the basis of SIC’s claim: “How can the SIC claim reserved seats when it did not contest the elections?”

She further noted that SIC Chairman Hamid Raza had contested as an independent, not under the party's banner.

“I am having difficulty understanding. The Sunni Ittehad Council did not win a single seat. Its chairman did not contest under the party's banner. The PTI was not even a party to the case — then how can reserved seats be granted?” she added.

Justice Hilali also observed that a party must be present in parliament for independent candidates to legally align with it -- a requirement SIC had not met.

Debate over procedural fairness and constitutional scope

Representing the PML-N and PPP, senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the SIC’s appeal had been unanimously rejected by the ECP and that elected members were de-notified without being given prior notice -- undermining procedural fairness.

He highlighted that Article 225 of the Constitution, which governs disputes related to elections, was not referenced in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling.

“Justice requires clarity -- this case is about reserved seats allocated proportionally, not direct elections,” Khan maintained.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail added: “The SIC could have become a parliamentary party, but it is not entitled to reserved seats, which are allocated on the basis of proportional representation.”

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded to Khan’s argument regarding de-notification without notice by clarifying that the court had already annulled the ECP’s notification, and that the commission’s actions remained the central issue before the court.

Khan insisted that affected parties should have been issued formal notices before being de-notified and reiterated that Article 225 had not been considered. Justice Mandokhail interjected: “How does Article 225 apply here?”

To this, Justice Mazhar replied: “The matter pertains specifically to the allocation of reserved seats based on proportional representation.”

Justice Shahid Bilal posed a further query: “Was the PTI even a party to the original case? And can a party that wasn’t part of the case be allocated seats?”

Khan agreed: “A party not party to the case should not be granted seats,” and referenced Justice Yahya Afridi’s observation that the PTI was not originally involved in the case.

Justice Hilali reiterated her concern: “The Sunni Ittehad Council did not win a single seat. Its chairman did not contest under the party's banner. The PTI was not a party to the case. Then how can reserved seats be granted?”

In his closing remarks, Makhdoom Ali Khan took exception to the majority opinion in the earlier verdict for invoking the concept of "constitutional loyalty", describing it as emotionally charged and legally ambiguous: “The use of such a concept in legal arguments appears to be emotionally driven.”

The bench adjourned the hearing until Tuesday, asking SIC’s legal counsel to present their arguments in the next sitting.