ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court`s Constitutional Bench on Tuesday questioned the Sunni Ittehad Council`s (SIC) standing in the reserved seats case, noting that the original order had allocated seats to the PTI and not SIC.

Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the 11-judge bench resumed the hearing on a set of petitions seeking to revisit the July 12, 2024, majority judgement.

The issue about the locus standi of SIC cropped up when Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned the party`s counsel, Faisal Siddiqi, whether he was representing PTI or SIC.

`Did PTI authorise the counsel to advance the arguments on their behalf too and did SIC know the counsel is also advocating for PTI since it may undermine their interest?` the judge observed.

The counsel said he has a `right to support the majority judgement` and criticised the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for not implementing the apex court`s order after more than 11 months.

The judgement had declared that 41 independents will file duly signed and notarised statements before the ECP within 15 days, explaining that they contested the Feb 8 general elections as a candidate of a particular political party PTI.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar wondered whether lawmakers had submitted any declaration indicating that they intended to join PTI after the majority judgment.

If they had submitted the affidavits, then how the SIC can now stand before the court as its members resiled after submitting the declaration, the judge remarked.

The ECP counsel said lawmakersdid submit declarations, but the commission did not accept them.

Then these lawmakers are still independent members, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed.

The counsel replied that the ECP recognises them as SIC members.

Justice Mazhar interjected, saying the Supreme Court declared these lawmakers independent, irrespective of whether the judgement had been implemented or not.

Mr Siddiqi, who was representing the SIC, argued the objection on the locus standi didn`t apply to the respondents but to the petitioners.

When the lawmakers decided to join PTI, their connection or relation with SIC was terminated, emphasised Justice Mazhar.

He asked the counsel to explain his position, as he could not understand the argument.

The lawyer accepted the judges` remarks `for the time being` and suspended his argument.

`So you agree that presently these members are independent, Justice Mandokhail interjected again, adding that if the answer was affirmative, then the question was whether any one of them could even approach the court.

Though conceded, the SIC lawyer said he wanted to argue on the maintainability of the review petitions first. `If these members are independent, then the role of SIC is still intact here,` Justice Mazhar remarked.

Another bench member, Justice Ali Bagar Najafi, asked about the `understanding` between PTI and questioned Mr Siddiqi whether the members he was representing belonged toPTIorSIC.

Justice Hilali asked about the symbol on which Sahibzada Hamid Raza, the SIC chairman, contested the elections. She added that Mr Raza himself contested theFebruary 2024 general election as anindependentcandidate.

`Why did Hamid Raza not contest the election from the platform of SIC?` Justice Hilali asked and expressed her annoyance at Mr Siddiqi for agreeing to answer the questions but later avoiding them.

`What was the philosophy behind SIC members contesting elections as independents?` she wondered.

The counsel explained the lawmakers were not candidates of SIC, but rather independent and the majority judgement classified them as such. Later, they were candidates of the PTI and not independent.

Mr Siddiqi said the court can grant three types of relief set aside the majority judgement, the consequence of which would be that the Peshawar High Court judgement and the ECP`s decision will be revived. The second being substituting the majority judgement with the minority and the third being the majority judgement set aside and the appeals before PHC revived for re-hearing.

Justice Khan observed that whatever record the majority judgment had relied upon was `not admissible` evidence as per the law. `No one knows which nomination papers out of four of these independent candidates were submitted by the ECP during the hearing.

He reminded the minority judgment, which he and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan had authored, did not rely on these records since they were not admitted as evidence.

`Therefore, these were not part of the record of the case.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that it should be left to the court to consider whether the right of any party was being infringed upon or not.

Later, the case was adjourned till Thursday.