ISLAMABAD, May 29 (Alliance News): The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday continued hearings on the government’s review petitions challenging its earlier decision on reserved seats, with a full constitutional bench of 11 judges, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, presiding over the proceedings.
Sunni Ittehad Council’s counsel, Faisal Siddiqui, presented arguments defending the earlier verdict, which had recognized Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as a political party and granted it rights to reserved seats.
He strongly denied allegations that the constitution was rewritten, asserting, “No constitution was rewritten.” However, Justice Musarrat Hilali pointedly remarked that extending the three-day period to fifteen days was, in essence, constitutional rewriting.
The debate turned intense when Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised a critical question: “Can judges go beyond the constitutional scope even in favor of democracy? Can they rewrite the constitution?” Siddiqui responded by emphasizing that the judiciary had acted within its bounds and upheld democratic principles.
During the session, questions were also raised about the legal status of candidates and their affiliation. Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked how PTI candidates were declared independents.
In response, lawyer Haris Azmat said efforts were made to answer in the written submissions. Siddiqui insisted that the Election Commission had a crucial role in the confusion, as it had declared PTI candidates independent despite their known association with the party.
Justice Mussrat Hilali questioned why Sahibzada Hamid Raza contested elections as an independent despite heading a political party since 2013, stating that a party contesting elections forms a parliamentary party and should follow constitutional procedures.
Faisal Siddiqui noted that the majority of judges in the earlier ruling had accepted PTI’s status and granted it reserved seats.
He challenged the logic behind relying on minority decisions for review when those judgments had also recognized PTI’s position. Justice Salahuddin Panhor observed that petitioners had not fully read the decision they were challenging.
In a lighter moment, Siddiqui quoted a Ghalib verse in reference to Justice Aminuddin Khan’s earlier ruling: “How sweet are your lips, my rival, who has not become dull by insulting me.” The courtroom shared laughter as Justice Amin remarked on Siddiqui’s extended arguments, and Justice Mandokhel complimented his style of respectful praise.
Siddiqui concluded by reaffirming that everyone in a democracy should have equal rights and criticized the exclusion of PTI candidates.
He expressed surprise that there were objections to reading the original majority decision during the review. Justice Mandokhel retorted that no one had stopped him from reading the decision.
The hearing highlighted sharp judicial inquiry and complex legal debate over constitutional interpretation, judicial limits, and democratic rights. The bench is expected to continue deliberations before issuing a final ruling.
