ISLAMABAD : The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Friday ruled that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf was not entitled to seats reserved for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.
The court, in a 7-3 majority decision, accepted the review petitions, nullifying the July 12 judgment while upholding the decision of the Peshawar High Court.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) will now lose its claim to the reserved seats, which will instead be allocated to the ruling coalition.
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court concluded hearings on the matter. The case was heard by a 10-member bench – down from the original 11 – headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan had completed his arguments.
Earlier today, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the review case related to reserved seats. During the hearing, a heated exchange took place between Justice Jamal Mandokhail and senior lawyer Hamid Khan.
As the proceedings continued, Hamid Khan argued that there were precedents indicating that the court could not hear this case.
In response, Justice Mandokhail asked, “Where is it written that we cannot hear the case? Show us in the Supreme Court Rules how we are not allowed to conduct this hearing.”
Also read: Justice Panhwar recuses himself from SC bench
Also today, Supreme Court Justice Salahuddin Panhwar stepped aside from the Constitutional Bench that was hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, following an objection raised by senior lawyer Hamid Khan.
As the bench reconvened to assess review pleas challenging the Supreme Court’s July 12, 2024 short order, Justice Panhwar recused himself. The order had ruled, with an 8-5 majority, that 39 of 80 MNAs were valid PTI candidates, positioning PTI as the largest party in the National Assembly.
However, this verdict has yet to be implemented by the Assembly, with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) objecting to its enforcement. The PML-N, PPP, and ECP have all submitted review petitions.
Initially, a full 13-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin heard the case in May.
Later, Justices Ayesha Malik and Shahid Waheed Abbasi declared the petitions inadmissible and withdrew. Their exit reduced the bench’s strength, with Justice Panhwar’s departure further narrowing it.
Justice Panhwar cited lawyer Hamid Khan’s objection to his inclusion on the bench—linked to the 26th Constitutional Amendment—as the reason for his withdrawal. In a written note, he emphasised the importance of judicial impartiality and public confidence in the bench. He acknowledged being personally hurt by the objection but stressed that his decision was rooted in judicial integrity, not personal sentiment.
Hamid Khan welcomed the recusal, prompting a sharp reaction from Justice Aminuddin, who reminded the court that arguments were ongoing from another SIC lawyer.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail criticised Hamid’s conduct, suggesting that his approach had disrupted the proceedings. Despite not being formally entitled to present arguments, Hamid was granted time out of courtesy, which drew frustration from some judges.
The court later resumed proceedings with a 10-member bench. Hamid had also previously questioned the legitimacy of the expanded bench, suggesting it was constituted after “court packing”—a reference to recent constitutional changes under the 26th Amendment, which increased the number of judges to address case backlogs.
The hearing will continue under the newly adjusted panel.
