ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the status of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) as a parliamentary party, upholding objections raised by the registrar’s office.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan conducted hearing of Maulvi Iqbal Haider’s petition challenging the declaration of the SIC as a parliamentary party, and other constitutional matters.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that his request was filed on time and that he sought a review of the Sunni Ittehad Council’s parliamentary designation. Justice Mandokhail asked the petitioner why does he want the Court perform an unconstitutional act? It is the candidates’ choice to join any political party, he said.
Justice Amin told Iqbal that you are going down the same path that had previously led to ban your entry in the Supreme Court. The bench upheld the registrar’s objections and dismissed the petition.
Moreover, the bench dismissed a petition challenging the limited public access to the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that 90% of petitioners are unable to reach the Supreme Court.
Justice Mandokhail said that they are listening to him directly, and asked what more access does he need? He further stated; “You are undermining your own institution.” He expressed annoyance over global bodies’ rankings of Pakistan’s judiciary, which place it extremely low. “Some says our judiciary ranks 120, others say 150, but where these numbers come from, we don’t know,” he added.
The constitutional bench also dismissed a petition seeking a fixed time frame for the completion of trials in higher judicial forums.
Justice Ayesha observed that many laws, including criminal laws, already have timelines. Justice Mandokhail told the petitioner that for time frames, he should approach the Parliament for legislation.
Petitioner Hassan Raza argued that trials sometimes take 20 to 40 years to conclude. Justice Malik advised, “Avoid sweeping statements and baseless allegations. The system isn’t perfect, but there is progress. Your petition concerns the National Judicial Policy, and under Article 184 (3), we cannot issue directives. Reforms are ongoing; join those efforts if you wish—this is not our role.”
Justice Mandokhail emphasised that “we are bound by the Constitution and law.” Justice Musarrat Hilali cautioned that an equally strong response from the judiciary might cause further disillusionment.
Justice Malik further noted, “The Law and Justice Commission exists for judicial reforms—please refer to them.” The court dismissed the petition following these arguments.