The Supreme Court on Thursday resumed hearings on the review petitions challenging the verdict that granted reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), with members of the larger constitutional bench questioning whether the judiciary had overstepped its mandate in interpreting the Constitution.
An 11-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case in a live broadcast session, marking a rare moment of judicial transparency in a matter that has drawn significant public and political interest.
Justice Musarrat Hilali, during her remarks, strongly criticised the original ruling, noting that the judgment had declared voting a fundamental right—a characterization she contended was incorrect.
“Fundamental rights are inherent by birth. The right to vote, however, is not; it is granted by law, contingent on age and other qualifications,” she observed. “This decision effectively rewrote the Constitution.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised a pointed question regarding judicial overreach, asking whether judges had the authority to amend constitutional provisions to accommodate democratic aspirations. “Can we as judges rewrite the Constitution?” he queried. “PTI has an array of experienced legal minds—how did such critical errors escape their scrutiny?”
Responding to the bench, senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui defended the original position taken in court, stating, “Even the Supreme Court consists of great legal minds. If everything were so straightforward, what would be the need for the court?” He also pointed out that 11 judges had recognized independent candidates as representing PTI. “To the extent of 39 candidates, both I and Justice Qazi Faez Isa concurred with the majority,” he added.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel noted that Justice Yahya Afridi, in the earlier proceedings, had also acknowledged PTI’s entitlement to reserved seats. “Justice Afridi categorically said PTI deserves seats,” Justice Mandokhel recalled.
During the arguments, Siddiqui remarked that he wished to present the minority decision for consideration. “I did not agree with Justice Amin’s ruling, but I found it to be a lively and dynamic decision,” he said. When interrupted by Justice Aminuddin for digressing from the main issue, Siddiqui argued, “For the first time, the review of a 13-member bench’s decision is before you, and yet you say the majority opinion should not be read?”
Justice Aminuddin informed Siddiqui that he would be granted another hearing to complete his arguments. Siddiqui, however, requested at least two more hearings, asserting, “It seems as though I am the one who filed the review. All the questions are being directed at me.”
Meanwhile, counsel representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) argued that several review applications were not in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules and should be dismissed. He was also questioned about the party’s election symbol. “The SIC’s symbol is the horse, but Sahibzada Hamid Raza contested independently,” the lawyer stated.
Justice Mandokhel remarked that this issue was not central to the current hearing. However, Justice Hilali insisted on clarity regarding the party’s role. “Sahibzada Hamid Raza’s political party has existed since 2013. If a party contests elections, it forms a parliamentary group—why then did he not contest under his own party’s banner?” she asked.
As the hearing concluded, the bench adjourned further proceedings until June 16.
