Pakistan’s top court rules against granting reserved seats to PTI-backed candidates

Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Friday struck down an earlier ruling that had allocated reserved seats in the National Assembly to PTI-backed independents who joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), declaring the move unconstitutional.

The verdict was delivered by a majority of seven judges on the bench.

The court order

In its short order, the Supreme Court explained how the bench was reconstituted during the course of the hearing:

“Today, at the verge of conclusion, one of the Hon’ble members of the larger Bench (Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar) for certain reasons, recused to continue his sitting in this Bench and contributed his separate note, therefore, the Bench was reconstituted with all the available members of the Constitutional Bench.”

The order noted that:

“Initially this Constitutional Bench was constituted for hearing of the aforesaid review petitions by 13 Hon’ble Judges of this Court but two of them (Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi) on the first date of hearing have dismissed all the review petitions.”

The court then laid out the decision reached by a majority of judges:

“For detailed reasons to be recorded later, subject to amplification or elucidation as may be deemed appropriate, by majority of 7 (Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Senior Judge, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi), all Civil Review Petitions are allowed and the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024 is set aside, as a consequence thereof, Civil Appeal Nos. 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored.”

The short order also recorded concurring but distinct views from other judges:

“Whereas, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, for reasons to be recorded later, partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of 41 seats.

“Whereas Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, for reasons to be recorded later, also reviewed the judgment and allowed the review petitions with the rider that since the factual controversy or disputed questions of facts neither could be resolved by the Peshawar High Court nor this Court in original or review jurisdiction, therefore, directions are issued to the ECP to examine and consider the nomination papers/declaration and other relevant documents of all 80 returned candidates by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats within 15 days from receiving the copy of this Short Order.”

PTI slams ruling as 'state oppression, denial of justice'

In reaction to the verdict, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) condemned the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a blow to constitutional rights and democratic representation.

The party said on X (formerly Twitter) the ruling marked a dark day for the country, which it described as “no longer a constitutional republic but a symbol of state oppression and injustice.”

PTI accused the judiciary of reversing its own earlier judgment that had upheld the party’s right to reserved seats, saying the latest decision crushed the spirit of justice and undermined the people’s mandate.

What's the case?

The dispute centers on the allocation of reserved seats in the National Assembly following the February 2024 general elections. The controversy began when dozens of candidates backed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) contested as independents after the party lost its electoral symbol. These independents later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a relatively minor religious-political party, allowing them to regroup under a formal party platform.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) denied SIC the right to reserved seats, citing its failure to submit a list of nominees before the polls — a mandatory procedural requirement. The decision was initially upheld by the Peshawar High Court.

However, in July 2024, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling, declaring that SIC was entitled to the seats — a decision the court said reflected “the will of the people.” Eight of the 13 judges on the bench held that 39 independents retained their seats despite joining SIC and were eligible for additional reserved seats for women and minorities. While the ruling was never implemented by the National Assembly, it effectively positioned the SIC-aligned bloc as the largest in the lower house.

The Supreme Court’s July judgment was subsequently challenged through review petitions filed by the ECP, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), prompting a high-stakes hearing before an 11-member constitutional bench.

With today’s verdict, the Supreme Court has nullified its earlier decision — a move that restores the allocation of reserved seats to the PML-N, PPP, and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F).

The hearing

The lead-up to the verdict was marked by courtroom drama, including the recusal of three judges from the constitutional bench. On Friday morning, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself after SIC counsel Hamid Khan objected to the inclusion of judges appointed after the 26th Constitutional Amendment -- a category that included Panhwar.

“Hamid Khan objected to the inclusion of judges appointed after the 26th Amendment. I am among them,” Justice Panhwar told the courtroom. “Public trust in the judiciary is essential. It is important that no party has any objection to the bench.”

Though visibly hurt by the comments, Panhwar clarified that his decision was not personal. “I cannot sit on the bench anymore for these reasons,” he added. Khan thanked the judge, but was promptly rebuked by Justice Aminuddin Khan, who said, “This is not something to appreciate. This is the result of your conduct.”

Justices Ayesha Malik and Aqeel Abbasi had already withdrawn from the case, reducing the original 13-member bench to 10 judges.

The day’s proceedings were tense throughout, with frequent friction between the bench and SIC lawyer Hamid Khan, who continued to question the bench’s composition and the legality of the 26th Amendment.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail confronted Khan over his repeated procedural objections, demanding legal justification: “What law are you citing for this objection? Whatever respect you have today is because of the Supreme Court.”

When Khan remarked that the bench should not proceed “while angry,” Mandokhail snapped back: “Be careful with your words. I skipped my mother’s funeral to be here, and you are joking.”

The exchange grew more heated as Mandokhail reminded Khan that Faisal Siddiqui had been appointed lead counsel for SIC and warned him not to derail proceedings. He also challenged Khan’s shifting stance on the 26th Amendment, saying: “You either accept the amendment or stop practicing law.”

Justice Aminuddin eventually adjourned the hearing until later in the day, indicating that the ruling would follow shortly.