- Advertisement -
ISLAMABAD, Jun 28 (APP):Minister of State for Law and Justice Barrister Aqeel Malik on Saturday said that the recent rulling of Supreme Court, which revisits the July 12, 2024 decision, has been given after full legal scrutiny and should be respected in line with the Constitution.
Talking to a press conference, he addressed confusion around the earlier decision by the Peshawar High Court.
He said that the case heard there was not limited to a single National Assembly seat but involved reserved seats across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan. The issue was taken up by the Peshawar High Court, even though, according to him, it could have been referred to the Islamabad High Court. A five-member bench at the Peshawar High Court initially heard the case and gave a split decision.
He clarified that the Supreme Court’s latest verdict is not a narrow 7-6 decision as some claim, but a detailed review by nine judges.
Commenting on constitutional aspects, Barrister Aqeel said that Articles 51 and 106 were central to the case.
He said the judgment at the time attempted to alter the meaning of these articles, which cannot be done by the courts. He noted that the Constitution does not cater to individual wishes but follows clearly defined rules. According to him, once the 26th Constitutional Amendment was passed, it became the responsibility of a constitutional bench to hear appeals and reviews.
He criticized the objection that the bench was not properly constituted, saying that all parties presented full arguments through their legal teams and had a fair chance to make their case. He said Barrister Gohar’s objections to the bench’s formation do not hold weight after full participation in the legal process.
Barrister Aqeel stressed that any claim that the bench was flawed loses value after detailed arguments were heard and judgments were made. He said the July 2024 decision contained several procedural flaws, and two judges opted not to participate in the review. However, he emphasized that decisions must follow the Constitution — not preferences — especially under Articles 51 and 106.
He said Article 51 and 106 are straightforward in directing how reserved seats should be allocated — through proportional representation based on parties already present in Parliament. Therefore, political groups that did not contest elections or are not represented in Parliament cannot claim those seats.
He urged critics to accept the verdict and show maturity. “After arguing your case in full and sending in your best lawyers, it is wrong to challenge the bench itself once a decision has been made,” he concluded.