Maps
Magazine

LEGAL

SC Reviews PTI Reserved Seats Case: Justice Mandokhel Admits ECP Erred on 39 Members
Justice Jamal Mandokhel says ECP made errors in 39 out of 41 reserved seat allocations. SC continues heated hearings on PTI-SIC reserved seats case.
ND
by News Desk
2025-06-16
SC Reviews PTI Reserved Seats Case: Justice Mandokhel Admits ECP Erred on 39 Members

The Supreme Court of Pakistan resumed hearings on the highly anticipated review case regarding the allocation of reserved seats to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), with Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel acknowledging that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) made a mistake in the case of 39 out of 41 candidates.

The hearing was held before an eleven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and broadcast live on the apex court’s official YouTube channel. Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), continued his arguments defending the Supreme Court’s earlier majority verdict.

Justice Mandokhel, in a notable remark, said, “In the majority decision, 41 members were not declared candidates of any party, which means the Election Commission made a mistake only to the extent of 39 members.” Faisal Siddiqui endorsed this observation, saying, “The majority admitted that there was indeed a mistake regarding 39 candidates.”

During arguments, Faisal Siddiqui emphasized that both PTI and SIC had aligned interests, as many PTI-backed independents joined SIC after PTI lost its electoral symbol in December 2023. However, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned the similarity in interest, stating that PTI and SIC had different constitutions and structures, raising doubts about the legal legitimacy of such alignment.

A light-hearted moment unfolded when Justice Hashim Kakar joked about comments made during previous sessions. Faisal Siddiqui responded by saying his wife scolded him for being too sensitive, to which Justice Mandokhel quipped, “Then you didn’t listen to Justice Kakar.”

The court engaged in deep legal discussion about:

·       Whether PTI’s independent candidates had genuinely joined SIC;

·       The relevance of Article 254, which protects actions taken in good faith even if procedural timelines were not met;

·       The status of Rule 94 of the Elections Act, which the court had earlier invalidated, raising questions about how independent candidates were labeled in the first place.

Justice Mandokhel questioned: “When the Returning Officer no longer has authority to declare a candidate independent, how can the Supreme Court retroactively declare them PTI candidates?”

Faisal Siddiqui defended the majority ruling by referencing the joint decision authored by Justices Aminuddin and Jamal Mandokhel, asserting that while procedural anomalies existed, the substantive justice lay in rectifying the ECP's errors.

Justice Salahuddin Panhor commented that the Supreme Court had corrected an earlier injustice through its reserved seats verdict. However, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar maintained that the context of each case must be evaluated, saying the decision was based on specific facts and circumstances.

The bench also debated whether the PTI had legally contested the 2024 elections as a party, considering it lost its symbol prior to polling. Siddiqui argued that regardless of symbol loss, the political reality of PTI’s influence over independent candidates was undeniable.

As the session concluded, Justice Mandokhel declared his openness to correction, stating, “If I have made any mistake in my decision, I am ready for correction.”

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow, with Faisal Siddiqui set to resume his arguments, and more clarity expected on the fate of the 41 reserved seats under review.

 
Tagged:

PTI

SIC

ReservedSeats

ElectionCommission

SupremeCourt

JusticeMandokhel
Share News: