PTI was not a party in reserved seats case: Two SC judges say in dissenting note

RAWALPINI – In their dissenting opinion on Saturday about the reserved matter, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan stated that the PTI could not be granted any relief because it was not a party.

Both justices disagreed with the majority’s decision and submitted a 29-page dissenting note. Four letters from the Sunni Ittehad Council to the Election Commission were also included in the opposing statement.

The justices noted that the Election Commission recognised independent candidates in accordance with the provisions of the national and three provincial parliament.

They stated that Articles 175 and 185 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 51, 63, and 106, would need to be suspended in order to provide relief to the PTI.

Justices Khan and Afghan noted that no one objected during any court proceedings that the [independent] members did not join the SIC and that the PTI was not a party to the issue at the ECP, Election Commission, or High Court.

They observed that the judges’ queries took up the majority of the time during eight hearings before the 13-member full court. None of the lawyers agreed to allocate reserved seats to the PTI.

Even Advocate Salman Akram Raja disagreed on whether the PTI should be given reserved seats.

In the dissenting note, they stated that due to the delay in issuing a comprehensive ruling, they are providing “our finding only on short order.”