reserved seats; It seems like the spoils are divided, Peshawar High Court

Peshawar: Peshawar High Court while hearing the case related to reserved seats has remarked that it seems like the spoils have been divided.

The hearing on the petition filed by the Sunni Unity Council for the reserved seats was conducted in the Peshawar High Court by a 5-member larger bench headed by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar, Justice SM Atiq Shah, Justice Shakeel Ahmed and Justice Syed Arshad Ali. Included.

On the occasion of the hearing, Attorney General, Advocate General, Election Commission counsel, petitioner counsel and lawyers of other parties, People’s Party’s Nir Bukhari, Faisal Karim Kundi and H. Farooq Naik were also present in the court.

The lawyer, petitioner Qazi Anwar Advocate, while presenting his arguments, said that the Peshawar High Court gave a decision regarding the election symbol and the Supreme Court annulled this decision. When the Supreme Court decision came, the symbol was withdrawn from us and all PTI candidates were considered independent. If an independent candidate wins after winning the election, he has to join a party after the notification is issued. Independent candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council.

Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim inquired whether any candidate of the Sunni Ittehad Council was successful in the election, to which the lawyer replied that no candidate of the Sunni Ittehad Council was successful. Justice Syed Arshad Ali remarked that his chairman contested the election as an independent and was successful.

Justice Syed Arshad Ali remarked that you had given the list of reserved seats on 21 February, to which the lawyer said that we had given the list after joining the Sunni Unity Council. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim said that if the specific seats given in the constitution are left vacant, then the parliament will not be complete. The lawyer said that the constitution says that reserved seats cannot be given to other parties, they will remain vacant until the next election.

During the hearing, the Attorney General told the court that 63(1) Clause 1 says that when a party wins a seat, then it is a parliamentary party and independent members can join it. Justice Syed Arshad Ali said that what is the letter of Article 51 d, is the Sunni Ittehad Council a parliamentary party or not, will their parliamentary leader be in the assembly or not. If 8, 9 political parties meet and form a party, Then what will happen to those who have not participated in the election?

Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim said that when the Election Act 2017 was being passed, was it not considered what would happen in such a situation? The Attorney General said that section 104 sub-section 4 mentions it. When a party participates in an election and wins a seat, then it will get specific seats. When a party participates in an election, it expects to get a seat and therefore submits lists for specific seats.

The Attorney General said that when a party submits a list and has more reserved seats, then it can submit a list again. A party is formed because it will participate in the political process, participate in the election. If 100 seats are won by independent candidates and 166 seats are won by other political parties, then 166 seats will be reserved. . Independent members have to join a parliamentary party.

Justice SM Atiq Shah said that the Sunni Ittehad Council is a registered party with the Election Commission, on which the Attorney General said that the political party has to be seen in 51 d and 63 A. The Sunni Ittehad Council is a political party because the Election Commission and Parliament have approved it.

Justice Syed Arshad Ali said that if we look at 51 and 104, that procedure has been given. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim said that if we come to the conclusion that 104 is in conflict with the constitution, then can the court declare 104 as unconstitutional.

Attorney General Usman Mansoor Awan said that there are 16 reserved seats for women in Balochistan Assembly. 12 seats belonged to political parties, 4 independents won and other reserved seats were distributed to other parties. According to the constitution, no specific seat can remain vacant. There are consequences if the priority list is not submitted within the stipulated time. As per the Election Act 104 and Rules, the party winning the seat has to submit the list of the specific seats first.

Justice Ijaz Anwar said that if one party wins 12 general seats and the other 18 general seats, what will happen if an independent candidate joins the party that wins 12 general seats? In this case, that party will become a major party after the inclusion of independent candidates, on which the Attorney General said that the condition of collecting the list of candidates will not be fulfilled. Which is in Article 51 and Election Act 104.

The court said that if an independent candidate joins a party, can’t he be given specific seats? Attorney General replied that it can be given but if there is any representation of this party in Parliament. On this occasion, the Attorney General completed his arguments.

Later Election Commission counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand came to the rostrum, the court inquired whether he supports the arguments of the Attorney General, to which he replied that yes, I support the arguments of the Attorney General.

The lawyer of the Election Commission said in his arguments that the law says that the political party which is represented in the Parliament will get specific seats. Article 51 d and section 104 says that if there is a general meeting, they will get. The law says that the list of reserved seats must also be submitted before the last day of nomination papers. This political party (Sunni Ittehad Council) has no general seat and has not collected a specific list before.

Vakil Election Commission further said that the formula is simple, one set is mandatory, if there is no set, then it is such that whatever number you add with zero, it will remain zero. I will discuss the questions raised by the court. According to 104 of the Election Act, the petitioner party is not a political party. The Sunni Ittehad Council did not participate in the election.

He said that there is a need to change the law, but the current interpretation has to solve this problem. The interpretation is that at least one set must be won. Now it is for the bench to decide whether the interpretation is correct or not. It is mandatory for a political party to participate in elections under its symbol. The Sunni Ittehad Council did not participate in the general elections. Then the list for specific seats must also be submitted before the last date.

Justice Syed Arshad Ali said that we are with you on what 104 says that they did not submit the list. The situation that has arisen now, Parliament has not done anything to resolve this situation. We should send it to the Parliament if they legislate on it. On which the lawyer said that only the Attorney General can give the answer. Election commission lawyer Sikandar Mohmand completed his arguments.

Justice Arshad Ali asked if the court declares Section 104 to be in conflict with the Constitution, what will be your stand?, to which the lawyer Election Commission said that it is the power of the court to decide if the court finds that 104 is in conflict with the Constitution. So it can be invalidated. The Attorney General also said that I will go with the arguments of the Attorney General on this issue.

Justice Shakeel Ahmed asked whether these seats can be kept vacant, to which the Attorney General said that certain seats cannot be kept vacant. Justice Shakeel Ahmed inquired whether these reserved seats can be distributed to any other political party, the Attorney General said that these reserved seats are not assigned to the political party but to the provinces. These reserved seats cannot remain vacant under any circumstances. The reserved seats in the National Assembly are distributed proportionally among the provinces.

The court said that the specific seats of the National Assembly are distributed under which formula, on which the Attorney General said that this formula is given in the Election Act.

PPP’s lawyer Farooq H. Naik opened the arguments, upon which Justice Ijaz Anwar asked him to tell how many seats he won in the province and how many seats he got. Farooq H. Naik said that I do not remember the numbers yet. I will give my arguments in this issue. The general seat is based on the population. The whole country is a constituency for the minority. Women’s seats are held on the basis of one constituency in each province. All three procedures are different.

Farooq H. Naik said that they are saying that our seats have been taken while these are not their seats. Justice Ijaz Anwar said that we also say that these are not the seats of the petitioners but the seats of the political parties.

Later, the lawyer of the PML-N, Barrister Haris Azmat, started the arguments. He said that the federal notification cannot be struck down by the High Court. There is also a decision of the Lahore High Court on this. Justice Ejaz Anwar said that you are presenting a single bench decision before a 5-member bench, to which the lawyer said that actually the high courts of each province will give different decisions. Federal matters can be determined only by the Supreme Court.

Later, JUI’s lawyer Kamran Murtaza argued that no list can be given after the last date. It is clear that the party participating in the elections will get certain seats. When you don’t give a list, it means that you don’t give specific seats. This party did not contest the election in its own name.

On this occasion, Justice Ejaz Anwar remarked that it has happened that after the booty is distributed, the remaining things are redistributed to the people who came first, to which lawyer Kamran Murtaza said that no, this The party has missed the train.