SC rejects PTI’s intra-party polls plea after lawyers refrain from arguing

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the verdict on the party’s internal polls was dismissed after its lawyers refused to proceed with the case following the 26th constitutional amendment monday

The coalition government passed the controversial constitutional package in the National Assembly early on Monday, after successfully steering the 26th Amendment Bill 2024 through the Senate.

The judicial reforms came into effect later today after President Asif Ali Zardari signed the bill on the advice of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

A three-member bench, headed by CJP Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, was hearing the PTI’s plea to review its ruling on intra-party elections.

On January 13, the bench unanimously set aside the Peshawar High Court (PHC) judgment and upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision declaring PTI’s intra-party polls “unconstitutional”.

The PTI had filed a plea before the apex court seeking a review of its verdict.

During today’s hearing, PTI’s counsel Hamid Khan filed a fresh plea for constitution of a larger bench to hear the review petition.

When asked about the reason for this request, the lawyer suggested that the court look at a past verdict of a 13-member bench in a case of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP ).

To this, CJP Isa objected that it was a different case. He asked why PTI did not want to give the arguments.

“Say whatever you want to say to my face instead of saying it on TV behind my back,” the top judge remarked.

Responding to the statement, PTI’s lawyer said that he cannot present the arguments against “an extremely biased person”.

CJP Isa remarked that the petition under hearing did not mention this aspect.

Meanwhile, Justice Hilali asked Hamid to explain why he said the existing bench was biased.

After the exchange of interventions between the lawyer and CJP, PTI leader Advocate Ali Zafar maintained that the party will not present the arguments before this bench.

“This bank can no longer hear this case,” he said in reference to the judicial changes.

In this regard, CJP Isa remarked that he is not aware of “any such amendment” as the matter has not been brought to his notice.

“Don’t tell us what we can hear and what we can’t,” said the top judge.

It should be noted that the constitutional changes had not yet been enacted at the time of the hearing and therefore did not apply to the Supreme Court or any bench of the court.

Advocate Hamid said that they have applied for constitution of a larger bench to hear this matter, but CJP Isa opposed the application, saying that a larger bench cannot be constituted for a petition of review

In this regard, the lawyer cited the majority verdict of the 8-member SC bench in the case of reserved seats as an example.

However, the chief justice noted that the case he is referring to has a review petition pending in court.

“We will not comment on a case in which a review request is pending,” he said.

Following this, Advocate Zafar and his counsel’s withdrawal from the stand, while CJP Isa passed the order dismissing the case, stating that PTI’s lawyers failed to give their arguments on the merits of the case

“No error could be pointed out in the original decision in the matter,” the order said.

In this regard, Advocate Hamid said that the order should also mention the reason why they did not present the arguments.

“Please state that I refused to present arguments to an extremely biased judge,” he added.

After successfully steering the 26th Amendment Bill 2024 through the Senate, the coalition government passed the controversial constitutional package in the National Assembly in the early hours of Monday.

The legal reforms fixed the term of the CJP at three years, while a new chief justice will be appointed by the parliamentary committee from among the three senior-most judges.

In addition, the Supreme Court and the superior courts will have constitutional benches established under the changes to the Constitution, in which the most senior judge of each court will act as president.