The Supreme Court of Pakistan continued proceedings in a landmark constitutional case on Thursday concerning the allocation of reserved seats, with arguments underway on review petitions filed against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision.

An 11-member full bench, led by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, is hearing the case, which is being broadcast live on the apex court’s official YouTube channel.

Senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja, representing PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab, opened his arguments by extending condolences over the passing of Justice Jamal Mandokhail’s mother. Citing the Sindh High Court Bar ruling and the Supreme Court’s annulment of emergency powers during the Musharraf era, Raja contended that the top court holds the authority to correct unconstitutional decisions in defense of the Constitution.

Raja argued that Section 66 of the Elections Act does not require third-party verification for a party ticket, asserting that documentation from the political party alone suffices.

When asked by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar about the submission of evidence, Raja confirmed that candidates had filed the required documents and that a judicial majority acknowledged them.

Justice Mandokhail inquired whether these observations were part of the majority opinion, and Raja stated they were, though he did not read them in detail due to time constraints.

The bench raised concerns over inconsistencies in PTI candidates’ declarations of party affiliation. Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned why only some candidates affirmed their association with the party.

Chief Justice Aminuddin noted that just 39 candidates had formally declared their affiliation, while Justice Mandokhail observed that the remaining candidates could have filed affidavits. Raja insisted that all candidates had submitted necessary documents affirming their ties to PTI.

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi queried whether PTI had taken any formal steps as a political party, to which Raja responded that the status of candidates as independents had been challenged. He added that the controversy stemmed from the ECP’s declaration on December 24, 2023, that PTI no longer qualified as a political party.

When asked about the validity of PTI’s intra-party elections, Raja said the party deemed them legitimate. Justice Amin warned that rejecting the legitimacy of those elections would have consequences. Raja maintained that a misinterpretation of Rule 94 was used to deny PTI its electoral symbol and reserved seats.

Justice Hilali asked why PTI did not hold fresh intra-party elections. Raja replied that they did, but those were also challenged. He noted that PTI was stripped of its electoral symbol on December 22, and the party’s list for reserved seats was rejected on December 23. He said PTI approached the courts after its affiliation was rejected on the last day for nomination submissions.

Justice Mandokhail observed that the ECP had no PTI lists on record, while Raja contended that the commission refused to accept the lists, prompting PTI to upload them online and seek relief from the Lahore High Court.

In response to a query from Justice Rizvi about campaign messaging in the absence of official party status, Raja said PTI candidates used slogans like “Khan ka Sipahi” and claimed their campaign material was repeatedly removed by authorities.

Raja emphasized that no political party securing 33% of seats in the National Assembly had ever been denied reserved seats. Justice Hashim Kakar urged Raja to focus on Rule 94, which he said rendered other arguments irrelevant. Raja responded that Rule 94 had been challenged and was struck down by eight judges in a majority verdict.

Justice Kakar stressed that the rule still legally applied unless repealed. Raja argued that the court petition was filed on December 31, leaving only three days for PTI-backed candidates to join another party.

Justice Hilali questioned how PTI submitted 81 names for reserved seats without being a parliamentary party. Raja replied that the names were submitted as per court orders, but the ECP rejected them.

Justice Mandokhail asked when these lists were submitted. Raja stated that a February 2 court order was issued on February 7 just a day before the elections leaving PTI without sufficient time.

Raja also alleged that the ECP unlawfully awarded additional reserved seats to other political parties.

As Raja concluded, senior lawyer Hamid Khan appeared before the court seeking to argue but noted he had been on leave since June 23.

Chief Justice Aminuddin acknowledged Khan’s seniority but pointed out that the arguments had already concluded and that Khan would be the third counsel. The court denied the request for adjournment.