Join our Whatsapp channel

       ISLAMABAD: The hearing of review applications filed against the Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision in the reserved seats case will be streamed live, the Constitutional Bench decided on Thursday.

       Justice Aminuddin Khan, who was heading the 11-member bench, announced the decision while reading out a one-page short order.

       The detailed reasoning for the decision will be recorded later, said the order.

       The court’s IT Department has been directed to make arrangements for the live-streaming.

       things to know before you get a tattoo

       Next

       00:00 / 01:59

       Skip

       Ads by

       While the bench accepted the plea for live-streaming, it dismissed other applications seeking to put off the hearing of review petitions until challenges to the 26th Amendment to the Constitution were decided, challenging the composition of the present 11-judge bench, and the inclusion of the original judges who heard the original case.

       CB dismisses plea to first decide challenges to 26th amendment

       The dismissed applications were moved through senior counsels Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqi on behalf of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).

       In its July 12, 2024, order, the SC bench, with a majority, ruled that 39 out of a list of 80 MNAs were and are the returned candidates of the PTI, setting it to emerge as the single largest party in the National Assembly.

       Right to rebuttal

       The decision to allow live-streaming was announced after a 40-minute-long consultation between judges at the ante room adjacent to the Courtroom No.1.

       Before the short order was announced, an unpleasant situation unfolded when the bench was about to retire for consultation.

       After senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan concluded his arguments on behalf of PML-N women aspirants vying for the special seats for women, Justice Khan announced the bench was taking a short break to determine the fate of the applications.

       As the bench was about to retire, Mr Siddiqi, the SIC counsel, came to the rostrum seeking to respond to Mr Makhdoom’s arguments.

       He jibed if his “right to rebuttal” had also been abolished after the 26th amendment.

       “I will not take as much time in the rebuttal as provided by the bench to Khawaja Haris Ahmed,” Mr Siddiqi said while referring to a separate case pertaining to the military trial of civilians.

       Justice Khan asked the counsel to submit his response in writing and regretted the counsel was “attributing something to the bench which was not said at all”.

       Earlier, Mr Makhdoom contended that the SIC had no locus standi — the right to bring a case to court — to argue since its original petitions were dismissed by the original bench.

       A visibly irked Mr Siddiqi, in a high-pitched voice, interrupted, saying, “Then why the SIC was made a party in the case?”

       Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, a member of the CB, pointed towards Mr Siddiqi, calling his conduct “inappropriate”.

       “Speak to the court,” the judge told Mr Siddiqi.

       The lawyer conceded that he was wrong and expressed his remorse at the end of the hearing.

       Larger bench

       In his arguments, Mr Siddiqi contended it would become an “insurmountable problem” for the bench if Justices Ayesha A. Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, who dismissed the review petitions on the first day of hearing, didn’t sign the final order.

       It will create a “great controversy” that would impede the implementation of the judgement.

       Therefore, it is necessary that either they should be included in the bench or the matter be referred back to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to nominate two judges to enlarge the bench to 13 judges.

       Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that it would become a “never-ending exercise” if two new judges, who added by the JCP, also recused themselves.

       Earlier, Mr Makhdoom argued that it was for the court and not a party in the case to determine what is decided first: the present case or the vires of the 26th amendment.

       The counsel also argued that in case of inconsistencies between Articles 188 (review petitions) and 191A (special scheme regarding the formation of the CB), the latter will prevail.

       Citing the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the counsel argued that after the 26th amendment, it was no longer practical to place review petitions before ordinary benches.

       He emphasised the present 11-judge bench was the only available bench to hear the cases.

       After the arguments, the CB initially set the next hearing for today (Friday). However, Mr Hamid, the SIC counsel, questioned how proceedings could commence without live-streaming arrangements.

       Later, the bench postponed further hearing till Monday.

       Published in Dawn, May 23rd, 2025