After the Peshawar High Court’s larger bench dismissed petitions filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to withhold the party’s allocation of seats reserved for women and non-Muslim lawmakers in the assemblies, PTI announced its intention to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.
During two consecutive days of arguments, the bench issued a short order on Thursday, rejecting the SIC’s two petitions, which PTI lawmakers had joined in seeking their share of reserved seats.
The petitioners had sought court directives for the ECP to allocate reserved seats to the SIC based on its parliamentary representation. They also contested Section 104 of the Elections Act, which requires political parties to submit priority lists of candidates for reserved seats.
On March 6, the court granted interim relief to the SIC, directing the National Assembly speaker not to administer oaths to eight MNAs-elect on reserved seats from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Due to the complexity of legal issues involved, the PHC chief justice formed a special larger bench of five senior judges to hear the case.
Following the decision, PTI Chairman Gohar Ali Khan announced outside Adiala jail in Rawalpindi that the party would approach the Supreme Court to secure its share of reserved seats. Khan urged the top court to establish a larger bench to review the case.
PTI’s legal counsel, Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, explained the background, highlighting PTI’s struggle after being denied an election symbol by the ECP. Although the PHC initially ruled in favor of PTI, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, resulting in PTI contesting the general elections without a symbol.
Zafar argued that many independent candidates, needing party affiliation to access reserved seats, joined SIC. He cited constitutional provisions and the Elections Act, asserting SIC’s entitlement to seats in assemblies.
Responding to arguments from the bench, Zafar defended SIC’s legitimacy as a political party, despite not contesting elections directly.
Other parties, including the attorney general, ECP’s counsel, and representatives of PML-N, PPP, and JUI-F, argued against SIC’s eligibility, pointing out its lack of election participation and failure to submit candidate priority lists.
An additional advocate general supported the petitioner’s stance, asserting SIC’s status as a parliamentary party once independent members joined.
