ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Thursday raised serious concerns over Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) post-election decision to affiliate its independent candidates with the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a political party that holds no representation in parliament.
The 11-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, resumed hearings on review petitions challenging the court’s July 2024 verdict, which had redefined the legal contours of party affiliation and reserved seats.
Justice Khan remarked that PTI appeared to have misdirected its candidates into joining SIC despite it not being a recognized parliamentary party.
This misstep, he noted, undermined the integrity of constitutional requirements for party affiliation and eligibility for reserved seats.
Constitutional Ambiguity and Party Status Debate
During the proceedings, Justice Mussarat Hilali questioned whether the Supreme Court’s earlier eight-judge majority judgment effectively amended the Constitution by granting more than the allowed 15-day window for independents to join a party post-election.
She also highlighted a paradox in SIC Chairman Sahibzada Hamid Raza’s status — despite leading a registered party since 2013, he contested the 2024 elections as an independent.
“On what basis could individuals listed as independents on their nomination papers claim reserved seats meant for political parties?” Justice Hilali asked, pointing out that PTI never officially entered the parliament as a party due to its election symbol being revoked over its failure to hold intra-party polls.
Faisal Siddiqi, representing SIC, conceded that “mistakes were made,” but urged the court to consider the broader democratic context.
He argued that even great judges have erred in the past and that constitutional provisions must be interpreted through a lens of democratic constitutionalism. This prompted Justice Mazhar to respond, “If public sentiment shapes every judgment, what becomes of the Constitution itself?”
Reserved Seats and Democratic Process
The bench explored whether PTI could still claim reserved seats for women and minorities despite its candidates running independently.
Siddiqi maintained that while PTI-affiliated individuals ran without the party symbol, they represented the same political will. He insisted the majority opinion of the Supreme Court judges had confirmed that the reserved seats rightfully belonged to PTI — not SIC — despite the confusion.
Justice Najafi pointed out that parts of the July 2024 ruling appeared to pre-determine the outcome by relying more on opinion than case facts.
The lawyer responded that while foundational principles were stated early, it did not amount to judicial bias.
Siddiqi also reminded the court that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had misinterpreted prior court rulings, causing PTI’s candidates to be classified as independents, which in turn forced them to join SIC as a workaround to secure reserved seats.
However, he acknowledged that this legal workaround is now under heavy judicial scrutiny.
In conclusion, while defending PTI’s attempt to navigate a politically challenging environment, the SIC counsel accepted that constitutional clarity is essential.
The bench continues to assess the implications of PTI’s decisions on future electoral conduct and parliamentary integrity.
