ISLAMABAD:The highest court in the land on Monday waded into uncharted waters as it began hearing review petitions against its July 12 judgement – a verdict that had handed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures – but without six of the original judges, including the judgement’s author.
The hearing broke new ground in more ways than one, marking several firsts in judicial history.The review petitions, filed by the ruling PML-N and PPP alongside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), are being heard by a 13-member larger bench.
Curiously, the majority of the new Supreme Court bench were not part of the original decision, and no explanation has been offered as to why the court’s constitutional committee did not recommend including the six judges from the earlier ruling.
For the first time since the 26th Constitutional Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court proceedings were broadcast live, a move hailed as a step toward transparency, though the absence of key judges cast a long shadow.
Despite the high stakes, not a single judge offered observations in favour of the majority judgement under review. Even Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi – both signatories to the original ruling – remained unusually tight-lipped, adopting a tone of marked restraint.
In contrast, two judges who had not been part of the original bench raised a fundamental question: if the PTI was not a party in the initial case, how could it receive relief?They wondered as to how reserved seats were given to PTI when they were not a party, neither before the ECP nor the Peshawar High Court (PHC).
Justice Aminuddin Khan observed that it was an admitted fact that all PTI-backed returned candidates had joined the Sunni Ittehad Council, which had not contested the general elections.He pressed further, asking whether any PTI-backed returned candidate had approached any forum to declare himself as a PTI candidate.
The elephant in the courtroom, however, remained the role of the ECP during the controversial February 2024 polls, with most judges sidestepping the discussion on it. Though the majority judgment had held the ECP to account, only Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail pointed to the electoral body’s failings.
