- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Jun 26 (APP):Eminent lawyer and counsel for the PTI leader Kanwal Shozib, Advocate Salman Akram Raja concluded his arguments before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan defending his petitions against a judgment of the Election Commission Pakistan for allocation of reserved seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies.
The 11-member larger Constitutional Bench, presided over by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hiring the high-profile case significant in the parliamentary history of Pakistan. The hearing, broadcast live on the Supreme Court’s official YouTube channel, focused on review petitions challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision on the allocation of reserved seats.
Salman Akram Raja, representing PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab, appeared before the court and began his arguments by expressing condolences over the recent passing of Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail’s mother.
In his arguments, Raja referenced the Sindh High Court Bar Case, stating that the judiciary has historically intervened to restore constitutional order. He highlighted the example of the November 3 emergency imposed during General Pervez Musharraf’s regime, which the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional, nullifying all measures taken under it, including judicial appointments. Raja read aloud from the verdict that invalidated the emergency and reinstated judges removed during that period.
“The Supreme Court can undo unconstitutional actions through its judgments,” Raja argued. “Whatever contradicts the law is reversed to restore the system. Relief is granted in line with the circumstances of each case.”
He further contended that Section 66 of the Election Act empowers political parties to issue tickets without requiring third-party verification.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail interjected, asking what happens if a party’s intra-party elections are invalid. “Caretaker setups are still functional, aren’t they?” he questioned. Raja responded that the party structure does not automatically dissolve, and the Supreme Court has previously affirmed this.
Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned why PTI did not hold fresh intra-party elections. Raja replied that the party did hold elections, but those too were challenged. “In the main case, the ECP presented several documents, and we spent two days arguing over them,” he said, adding that Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Jamal Mandokhail had also criticized the ECP’s actions.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the ECP records contain no lists from PTI. Raja responded that the Commission refused to accept them, so PTI uploaded the lists on its official website.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi recalled that in 1995, candidates ran under the slogan “Awam Dost” (Friends of the People) when party elections were under dispute. He asked if PTI used any such identifier in the absence of party status. “Yes, Sir, we used terms like ‘Khan ka Sipahi’ (Soldier of Khan),” Raja replied. “That’s why people voted for us.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the scope of judicial review differs across various cases.
Following the conclusion of Salman Akram Raja’s arguments, senior lawyer Hamid Khan took the rostrum. He informed the court that he had been excused from proceedings after June 23. Justice Aminuddin Khan responded, “You’re a senior lawyer; it would be inappropriate for us to make exceptions at this stage. All other arguments have been presented, and you are the third lawyer from the same side.”
Hamid Khan asked whether the court was rejecting his request for adjournment. Justice Khan replied firmly, “Yes, we are denying your adjournment request.”
After Hamid Khan begin his arguments and continued for a while, the Court adjourned the proceedings for tomorrow.