PESHAWAR (Dunya News) – A five-member larger bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday rejected the petition of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) for allotment of reserved seats for women and minorities.
Ealrier, the court reserved verdict on the petition after hearing the arguments of the parties for three hours.
The bench, headed by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and included Justice Ijaz Anwar, Justice Atiq Shah, Justice Shakeel Ahmed and Justice Syed Arshad Ali, heard six petitions of various political parties as well as the Election Commission of Pakistan.
When hearing started on Thursday, Barrister Ali Zafar continued his arguments and submitted that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was deprived of its symbol days before general elections.
Also Read: Reserved seats: PHC asks whether SIC is a political party or not
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Election Commission (ECP) to deprive the PTI of its election symbol after which candidates were given different symbols to contest election as independents. Yet people voted for the PTI overwhelmingly.
Barrister Zafar said that after winning the election as independents, they joined the SIC.
Eighty-six members-elect of the National Assembly, 107 of the Punjab, 90 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, nine of Sindh and one of Balochistan assemblies joined the SIC.
The ECP was bound to allot 78 seats to the SIC, but it did not do so, he added.
Read Also: PHC extends stay on oath-taking of lawmakers notified on reserved seats
The court inquired the counsel whether it was hearing the case of reserved seats of the entire country. Barrister Zafar replied that the petition was for the National and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies.
It may be noted that the ECP had refused to give 20 reserved seats for women and three minority seats to the SIC.
Barrister Zafar said that the ECP had said that it would decide this case. In the meantime, six different applications were filed requesting that the reserved seats should not be allotted to the SIC.
The applicants objected that the SIC did not contest the general elections. As such, a list of candidates for reserved seats was not submitted before the election. So, the applicants demanded that the reserved seats should be distributed among other parties, he added.
The lawyer said the Constitution provides that reserved seats should be given according to the number of seats won by a party.
Barrister Zafar said he would like to argue the question asked yesterday 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 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 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.