SC Adjourns SIC’s Case Regarding Reserved Seats till July 1
APP
Islamabad: The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned hearing of an appeal of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) regarding reserved seats till July 1.
A 13-member SC bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and comprising justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Amin ud Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) lawyer Sikander Bashir argued that Hamid Raza had stated in the nomination papers that he was associated with the SIC and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), but in documents he showed his affiliation with the PTI Nazriati. The latter was a different party from the PTI.
He said Hamid Raza was given the symbol of ‘tower’ on his request to contest elections and he participated in the polls as an independent candidate.
He said Hamid Raza did not submit the ticket of PTI Nazriati and instead gave the certificate of affiliation with the PTI. However, in its affidavit he stated that he was in the PTI Nazriati.
Sikander Bashir said that the ECP accepted the last request of Hamid Raza.
The chief justice remarked that it was necessary to attach a certificate of party affiliation with the nomination papers from which the election was to be contested. He asked the lawyer to clarify the party affiliation of the said candidate.
The ECP’s lawyer said that the candidate’s declaration and affiliation with the party must be shown. “If the declaration and political affiliation do not match, then the candidate is considered as independent.”
Justice Yahya Afridi asked whether it happened that a candidate gave a certificate that he was affiliated with a party, but the ECP declared him as independent.
The lawyer replied that there were such candidates but they withdrew the nomination papers.
The CJP said,”Don’t confuse it with the election symbol, why should we not consider them as the PTI candidates. There is no contradiction in the certificate and the ECP is changing the candidate’s status. Why is the candidate’s affiliation not being considered with the party whose certificate is submitted?”
Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that the SC upheld the decision of the ECP regarding the election symbol but it didn’t not order to keep the PTI out of elections.
Justice Athar Minallah asked whether it should be believed that the PTI was ousted from the general elections. Whether the ECP misinterpreted the top court’s decision, he asked.
Justice Yahya Afridi noted that six candidates gave certificates and declarations of the same party but they were also declared as independent ones.
Justice Munib Akhtar said that the candidate did not declare himself as independent, rather it was the ECP which did so. The candidates then wanted to join the party but the ECP raised the objection.
The CJP said that there is a contradiction in the documents submitted by the ECP before the court. How could a candidate’s connection with a party break if he did not get the election symbol, he added.
The ECP lawyer further said that a political party had to win at least one seat in the general election if it wanted to claim reserved seats. The SIC did not won a single seat, while the independent candidates had no affiliation with it, he added.
To a court’s query, he said that the PTI had given a list of candidates for reserved seats but the SIC did not file it.
The top court instructed the ECP to produce the PTI’s list for reserved seats on next date of hearing and adjourned the case.
