Supreme Court Challenges Election Commission’s Stance on Sunni Ittehad Council
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the notification declaring the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party has been placed on record by the Sunni Ittehad Council. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah showed the notification to the Attorney General. The lawyer for the Sunni Ittehad Council also presented a notification from the National Assembly Secretariat. The Chief Justice remarked on what difference it makes whether it is a parliamentary party or not. If a political party wins candidates, it automatically becomes a parliamentary party. Even if a notification is issued, it will have no effect. Justice Ayesha Malik questioned why it would have no effect. Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked, is it not a contradiction that on one hand, the Election Commission does not recognize the Sunni Ittehad Council as a political party, and now the Election Commission’s own record acknowledges these people as part of the Sunni Ittehad Council? How is the Election Commission depriving them of seats while recognizing them as a parliamentary party? The Attorney General stated that there is no legal standing for the Election Commission’s notification regarding the inclusion of independent members into the Sunni Ittehad Council. The Chief Justice remarked, has any party claimed that the seats should remain vacant? Every party is demanding the seats to be given to them. The dispute over reserved seats arose due to the mistakes of the Election Commission. It is not the Supreme Court’s duty to correct the mistakes or to suggest legal options for rectifying the error. Did the Election Commission not declare these people as independents themselves? When this has happened, should the court not correct this error? In the case of reserved seats, Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked, and Justice Athar Minallah commented that by excluding a political party, the Election Commission has committed a grave constitutional violation. It has been proven that the Election Commission misinterpreted the court’s decision. Is it not the judiciary’s responsibility to correct this? Do you want to revive the doctrine of necessity? Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked, why did the Constitution makers not foresee the current situation? If the Constitution does not mention or has an error regarding the situation, let the Constitution and its makers deal with it. Let Pakistan follow the Constitution once. All decisions under the doctrine of necessity only mention the requirement of justice. When there is no concrete material, justice interprets as it pleases. No judge is presumed to have bad intentions. The hearing of the case was adjourned until July 9th. Related article of this news :Justice Athar Minallah’s Big Remarks in reserved seats case