Three PML-N members affected by the Supreme Court’s reserved case decision filed on Saturday a review petition in the apex court.

In their petitions, Huma Akhtar Chughtai, Mah Jabeen Abbasi, and Syeda Amnah Batool urged the court to declare the short majority decision of July 12 as “null and void.”

On July 13, a full-court SC bench awarded reserved seats comprising minority and women seats to the PTI. The bench set aside orders of the Peshawar High Court and Election Commission of Pakistan taking away reserved seats from the Sunni Ittehad Council.

“Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf was and is a political party which secured and won… general seats in the national and provincial assemblies in the general elections of 2024,” said the majority decision read by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. The decision was made by a majority of eight and announced by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. However, the majority order was read out by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

The petition has made the Sunni Ittehad Council and the Election Commission of Pakistan, among others, as parties. It argues that the fact that the SIC did not submit a list for the specific seats is a reality and the decision to allocate these seats to PTI should be declared null and void.

Also, read this

How party position in NA can change after SC verdict

SC decision granted ‘unasked for’ relief to PTI: Tarar

Form 47 case will be next after SC’s decision on reserved seats, says PML-N’s Hiraj

It contended that allowing 41 members who joined the SIC on their own accord to change their party is equivalent to “rewriting” the Constitution, and a new method cannot be adopted that deviates from the established principles in the law. The petition has requested the court to declare the short majority decision of July 12 as “unconstitutional.”

It said: “The Impugned Order is against the settled principles of interpretation of the Constitution. By carving out a procedure which is not provided under the Constitution, Impugned Order might have gone into the realm of creating and not just interpreting the Constitution which is against the long standing jurisprudence of this Court.”