Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s PPP challenges SC verdict allocating reserved seats to Imran Khan’s party

ISLAMABAD: The Bilawal Bhutto Zardari-led Pakistan Peoples Party on Tuesday challenged the Supreme Court verdict allocating reserved seats to jailed former prime minister Imran Khan’s party a week after its ruling coalition partner Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) submitted a review petition, according to a media report.

On July 12, a 13-member full bench of the apex court ruled that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was eligible for the seats reserved for women and minorities in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies, which would make Imran Khan’s party the largest in Parliament.

Although several leaders from the ruling coalition were apprehensive of the Supreme Court’s judgment, it was Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, the daughter of PML-N party supremo Nawaz Sharif, who launched a salvo against the Supreme Court verdict saying, “I would like to ask the SC judges to let the country function.”

Maryam expressed her surprise and questioned the legitimacy of reinstating individuals she described as “criminals of the nation”, The Express Tribune newspaper reported.

The PPP's review petition seeks to overturn the July 12 decision that previously annulled the decisions of the Peshawar High Court and the Election Commission of Pakistan directing that the reserved seats be allocated to PTI.

This ruling affirmed PTI's status as a legitimate party within Parliament and provincial assemblies and if implemented in letter and spirit, the party will become the largest in the National Assembly as its seats will soar from 86 to 109 after it gains 23 seats reserved for women and minorities.

The ruling PML-N party-led government on July 15 already filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its decision to allocate reserved seats to PTI.

The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of the review petitions after the September holidays.

However, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, dissenting from the majority decision, argued that the summer holidays should be cancelled to address the review petitions promptly, the report said.

Isa emphasised that the Constitution should take precedence over the convenience of judges, stating that delaying the hearing would be unjust, the newspaper said.