PHC dismisses the PTI-backed Sunni Ittehad Council’s petition challenging ECP’s ruling that denied reserved seats to the party
PESHAWAR, March 14 (SABAH): The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) ruling that denied reserved seats to the party. “Petitions are unanimously rejected,” the court maintained.
Earlier on Thursday, the PHC resumed the hearing being conducted by a five-member bench led by Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Arshad Ali.
During his arguments, SIC’s lawyer Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said the Constitution does not mention when a party has to submit a list of names for reserved seats to the ECP. “It is not written anywhere that you cannot resubmit the list or when it has to be submitted,” the barrister argued, adding that there is no restriction on providing a second list and that the ECP could have issued a second schedule, as it did for the general elections.
“As per the law, those who participate in elections will get seats,” Justice Anwar remarked.
The court then questioned Barrister Syed Ali Zafar if it wasn’t clearly stated anywhere that the second schedule cannot be issued.
“The law does not prevent the Election Commission from issuing another schedule,” the lawyer responded.
Justice Arshad remarked that Section 104 explains the mechanism for reserved seats as it states that when a list is submitted then another list can be given.
“Section 104 says that if a political party participates in an election, it will give a list,” the lawyer argued.
He earlier argued that whoever wins the number of seats, they get reserved seats in the same proportion. “Their seats cannot be increased.”
“If these seats are not given, the parliament will not be complete,” remarked the chief justice, responding to which the lawyer requested the court to interpret the Constitution in a way that there remains no gap in its interpretation.
Barrister Syed Ali Zafar told the court that the ECP has the authority to [make] laws to maintain justice. He added that there is also an election for reserved seats, and that, too, should be transparent.
While discussing the admissibility of the application, the lawyer said that the pleas filed in Punjab and Sindh were limited to the respective provincial assemblies, but the one being heard by PHC pertains to the reserved seats of the province issued in the National and KP provincial assembly.
He argued that while the SIC had not submitted the list, the Lahore High Court had given a decision that there was no prohibition.
Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said he would like to argue the question asked on Wednesday that whether this court has jurisdiction over the National Assembly seats.
A question was asked; what is a political party. Barrister Zafar said according to him, a political party is the one that is listed. Election Act’s sections 202 and 210 discuss in detail what is a political party.
It is insignificant whether the SIC contests election or not. Boycott is also a part of the election, he argued.
The court asked if a political party contest election or not, will it remain a political party. A political party participates in elections to win seats, it added.
Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said that the SIC has an election symbol and is authorised to contest election.
Article 72 entitles political parties to rights; they can participate in elections, form government, get reserved seats, he continued.
Justice Shakeel Ahmed asked him what will happen if a political party does not contest election. What are my basic constitutional rights if I am a political party, he questioned.
Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said Article 17 entitles one to several fundamental rights. The ECP is confused in distinguishing between a parliamentary party and a political party.
Article 51(3) explains how reserved seats would be allocated to political parties. Reserved seats are allocated among political parties on the basis of general seats won, he stated.
The court inquired whether an independent candidate can get reserved seats if he wanted to be independent.
The lawyer answered in the negative and added that the independents have to join a party. A party cannot be deprived of its reserved seats merely for not submitting a list; it is illegal, he said.
There is no compulsion in filing a second again. A second schedule can be issued, like the ECP did it when they issued revised schedule of election, he said.
The court remarked that the party who do not contest election is not entitled to reserved seats. Whatever is added to zero, the sum answer is zero.
Before concluding his arguments, Barrister Syed Ali Zafar then directed the court towards a declaration regarding the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) which he had taken from ECP’s website. The lawyer earlier argued that the party was also given reserved seats later by the electoral authority in the past.
It is worth mentioning here that the electoral body, on March 4, had accepted applications of the opposing parties and decided that the seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain vacant and would be allocated by a proportional representation process of political parties on the basis of seats won by political parties.