On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that there have been instances where politicians have not complied with the apex court’s rulings. The SC judge made these observations during the hearing of a reserved seats case, where Salman Akram Raja, a leader and senior lawyer for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), referenced the Asghar Khan case.
Raja recounted his presence in the same court when, on one side, stood former Chief of Army Staff Mirza Aslam Beg, and on the other, former Chief of the Air Force Asghar Khan. “They both testified that they interfered in the elections. [However,] it was stated that it was done in the light of the national interest,” the lawyer asserted.
To this, Justice Mandokhail commented: “We issue judgments, but do politicians act on them?” He further added that “at some point, one political party or another remained the beneficiary.” Raja responded that he would elaborate on this matter outside the court.
The senior lawyer also contended that the country has experienced both direct martial rule and, at times, rule under the guise of Article 58-2(b). “You are narrating old history,” Justice Mandokhail replied.
Counsel Raja stated that the larger SC bench, in its verdict, had declared the process of PTI-supported candidates joining the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) null and void. Nevertheless, he said, the Supreme Court has also stated in its decisions that if no injustice has been committed, then an erroneous decision cannot be reviewed.
In response to a question from Justice Musarrat Hilali regarding granting the right to vote at the age of 10, Raja replied that the law has determined the age for voting rights. The lawyer added, “Some rights are granted only to citizens, some rights are regulated by law, and some rights are innate.”
On May 26, the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench had observed that the SIC was not entitled to reserved seats, questioning how independent candidates can join a political party that is not represented in parliament. This observation came as Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan led an 11-member constitutional bench hearing arguments on whether the SIC could claim reserved seats following the inclusion of independent candidates.
The court had remarked that while independents can join a party represented in parliament, it is constitutionally unsound for them to join one that did not participate in the elections. “How can independent candidates join a party not present in Parliament?” questioned Justice Hilali. “Did Sunni Ittehad Council even contest the elections?”
At the core of the dispute lies a July 12, 2024, Supreme Court order that, if fully implemented, could see the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) emerge as the single largest party. The July 12, 2024, order, supported by eight out of 13 judges, had declared 39 out of 80 contested MNAs as returned candidates of the PTI. This ruling, if enforced, would significantly bolster PTI’s parliamentary strength. However, implementation has been stalled, with the National Assembly yet to act and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) raising objections. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have all filed review petitions against the Supreme Court’s order.
