PESHAWAR  -  The Peshawar High Court on Thursday dismissed the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) ruling that denied reserved seats to the PTI-backed party.

The five-member bench of PHC led by Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Arshad Ali dismissed the SIC petitions.

Earlier, during his arguments, SIC’s lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar said the Constitution does not mention when a party has to submit a list of names for reserved seats to the ECP. He argued that it is not written anywhere that a person cannot resubmit the list or when it has to be submitted, adding that there is no restriction on providing a second list and that the ECP could have issued a second schedule, as it did for the general elections.

Justice Ijaz Anwar remarked that as per the law, those who participate in elections will get seats. The court then questioned Barrister Zafar if it was not clearly stated anywhere that the second schedule could not be issued. “The law does not prevent the Election Commission from issuing another schedule,” the lawyer responded.

Justice Arshad Ali remarked that Section 104 explains the mechanism for reserved seats as it states that when a list is submitted then another list can be given. “Section 104 says that if a political party participates in an election, it will give a list,” the lawyer argued. He earlier argued that whoever wins the number of seats, gets reserved seats in the same proportion and their seats cannot be increased.

On March 4, ECP accepted ap­plications of the opposing par­ties and decided that the seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain vacant and would be allocated by a proportional rep­resentation process of political parties based on seats won by political parties.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the five-mem­ber PHC bench issued a short order, siding with the ECP’s stance. Joined by independent­ly elected legislators supported by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-In­saf (PTI), the SIC had filed two petitions against the ECP’s al­location of reserved seats to other parties based on their performance in the February 8 general elections.

Barrister Ali Zafar, represent­ing the SIC, argued that their candidates participated in the elections independently, receiv­ing different symbols, but later joined the SIC. He claimed that SIC members now held rights to reserved seats in the assemblies.

The counsel contended that the SIC should have been allot­ted 78 seats in proportion to the number of independents who later joined the party, but these seats were allocated to other parties instead.

Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim point­ed out that the seats were al­located by the ECP, cautioning against labeling parties as “grab­ber mafia.”

The court deliberated on the definition of a political party, with the SIC counsel citing prec­edents and arguing for their eli­gibility for reserved seats.

However, the judges ques­tioned the SIC’s status, high­lighting differences between the PTI and the SIC regarding their election participation and rep­resentation in Parliament. The ECP’s lawyer argued against the PHC’s jurisdiction over reserved seats issues, indicating similar cases in other high courts.

Additional Advocate Gener­al Mubashar Manzoor asserted that the SIC became a parliamen­tary party after independents joined, emphasizing the party’s status despite not contesting the recent elections.

The court reiterated the law’s requirement for parties to par­ticipate in elections to qualify for reserved seats, ultimately af­firming the ECP’s decision.