ISLAMABAD   -  Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarian (PPPP) Tuesday filed a review petition before the Supreme Court submitting that the findings of the majority of 8-5 of the 13-member bench of the apex court are beyond the pleadings of the parties.

The PPPP also prayed to the court to review and recall its July 12 order passed in the appeals of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) for reserved of women and non-Muslims. Last week, President Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has also filed the review petition against the apex court order.

The PPPP maintained that the issue of granting the reserved seats to PTI was not even in the pleadings of SIC hence the same cannot be granted by this court. It is a well settled principle in our jurisprudence that “parties are bound by their pleadings”. In the instant case, neither SIC sought this relief, nor pleaded for the same. Hence, the order under review may kindly be recalled.

It also stated that the entire case as was pleaded before the ECP, Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court, was “Whether SIC was entitled to the reserved seats?”. Even in the leave granting order dated 6.5.2024 the contentions of SIC counsel have been noted.

The PPPP petition filed through Farooq H Naek contended that it was in fact the case of the SIC that the reserved seats can only go to SIC and no one else. The entire contest was whether SIC is entitled to the reserved seats? Hence, with respect the Order under Review has given findings which were beyond the scope of the lies at hand, therefore cannot be sustained.

Naek said that the SIC and PTI are two separate political parties and two separate entities. The order under review, it seems has treated them as one party with different names which cannot be permissible under the law. He reiterated that the PTI neither filed any case before the ECP, nor before Peshawar High Court, nor before the Supreme Court, hence it is not entitled to any relief, let alone a relief which was not even pleaded.

He submitted that all the returned candidates have already joined SIC and hence there is no question of giving them an option of joining PTI that too after many months of the election. It is also against Rule 92 (6) of the Election Rules, 2017 which state that once an independent candidate has joined a political party, there is no option to recall or cancel.

He added that the constitution in terms of Article 51 (6) (d) and (e) only gives a period of three days to the returned candidates to decide which political party to join. In the instant case, the order has given 15 days that too from the date of the order under review in clear contradiction to the constitution. He submitted that no new procedure or process can be adopted which is not provided in the Constitution, hence the order under review may be recalled.

He stated that July 12 order has neither struck/read down Article 51 (6) (d) and (e) of the Constitution nor Article 104 of the Election Act read with the Election Rules. In view of the said laws being on the statute books, the order which is in contradiction to the letter of the law may be recalled.

The petitioner maintained that the order is against the settled principles of interpretation of the constitution. “By carving out a procedure which is not provided under the constitution, order might have gone into the realm of creating and not just interpreting the constitution which is against the longstanding jurisprudence of this Court.” “It has been stated innumerable times by this Court that “the function of the Court is interpretation, not legislation”.

It said that it is now well-settled by this Court that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of the law without deviating from the prescribed procedure.