Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Atta Tarar has stated that no one was surprised by the detailed decision of two Supreme Court judges on reserved seats, as it cast doubt on the majority decision. Even 15 days after the decision on reserved seats, the detailed verdict has not been released. Relief was granted to those who did not even seek it from the court, including a party that was not the petitioner. How were 81 members granted relief when the Sunni Ittehad Council members did not state that they had changed parties? The judicial decision on reserved seats was written beyond the constitutional articles.
In a press conference in Lahore, Minister Atta Tarar said that PTI had raised questions about the Peshawar High Court’s decision on reserved seats. Yesterday, when the detailed decision by Supreme Court judges Justice Naeem Afghan and Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan was issued, no one was surprised. Usually, a detailed decision is released within 15 days of a verdict.
Atta Tarar noted that the two judges who wrote the dissenting note mentioned that it is curious why the written decision from the remaining judges has not yet been issued. Some constitutional articles discuss reserved seats, but this decision was written beyond those articles.
The judges raised the question in their dissenting note as to why the detailed decision was not issued even after 15 days. It is also mentioned that PTI was not part of the case, so how was relief granted to those who did not submit any application to the court or claim their right?
The Federal Minister of Information further stated that those elected on reserved seats and who had taken the oath had their membership terminated, yet the legal procedures prior to the termination of membership were not followed. How is it possible to terminate the seats of those elected on reserved seats without addressing the legal steps before the oath? This is quite astonishing.
PTI Got Relief They Didn’t Even Ask For, Rana Sanaullah’s Reaction to the Supreme Court Decision
Atta Tarar mentioned that it is a significant question mark that the two Supreme Court judges stated that the majority decision was given beyond the jurisdiction defined in Articles 175 and 155. They also discussed Articles 51, 63, and 106, indicating that implementing this decision would require suspending these constitutional articles. Members of the Sunni Ittehad are not saying they changed parties, so how could there be floor-crossing if they moved from the Sunni Ittehad to PTI’s ranks? Would this not violate Articles 62-1(f) and 63?
He pointed out that floor-crossing is not permissible. Will this decision set a precedent for any member wanting to change parties in the future? The two judges in their dissenting note also highlighted that the Sunni Ittehad did not exist in Parliament, and even the chairman of the Sunni Ittehad Council contested as an independent candidate. The constitution is clear that reserved seats are allocated to political parties present in Parliament based on proportional representation.
Atta Tarar continued, stating whether the Sunni Ittehad Council existed in Parliament or not is a crucial question, with the answer being that it did not, as their chairman contested independently. PTI’s former members erred in joining a party with no political presence. They could have joined a party like MWM, which had a presence.
The Minister of Information noted that PTI chose a political party that could not constitutionally claim reserved seats. The Sunni Ittehad Council’s constitution states that no minority member can join their party, so they could not claim minority seats either. The dissenting note by the two judges has cast a significant question mark on the majority decision, indicating that implementing it would require suspending constitutional articles.
He further mentioned that the decision to go beyond the constitutional jurisdiction in two articles is something they have pointed out from the beginning. Relief was given that was not requested, and to those who did not ask for it, making the situation unprecedented. This was highlighted by the clear contradictions in the articles of the Election Act 2017.
Atta Tarar emphasized that no one challenged the move to join the Sunni Ittehad. Had there been a challenge, PTI members could have been considered as belonging to PTI and not the Sunni Ittehad. Members who were elected were not heard or called upon, and their membership was terminated without considering the prior legal processes.
He added that they have filed a review petition and believe that it should be heard, but it has not been scheduled yet. There are no holidays in constitutional institutions globally, and the issue of holidays is also emerging here. The legal points raised by the two judges need to be discussed, and the suspension aspect is a significant question on the legal framework.
The PML-N leader mentioned that two issues are involved: one being the Sunni Ittehad asking for seats they were not entitled to, and PTI not being the petitioner. The answer to whether such significant relief should have been granted to PTI is still pending. These are critical legal points that need to be addressed in the detailed decision, otherwise, the perception of one-sided relief will harm the constitution and the rule of law in the country. Legalizing floor-crossing will be a setback, and interpreting Article 63-A in the past indicated that the vote would not be counted and membership would be nullified. Now, however, members are being asked to join a party with no parliamentary presence.
Federal Minister for Information Atta Tarar stated that the judges have raised very valid points in their dissenting note, and a response to these points is highly necessary.