By Uzma Ehtasham
The recent judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding reserved seats has stirred widespread debate and speculation, underscoring its potential to reshape the dynamics within the National Assembly. Despite attempts by the government to mitigate concerns, the decision carries profound implications, acknowledged by various stakeholders attuned to its gravity. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa led a comprehensive deliberation among all thirteen judges, culminating in a succinct ruling issued by a three-member bench. At the heart of the case lies the challenge posed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision. The ECP had barred PTI-backed lawmakers associated with the SIC from claiming reserved seats meant for minorities and women in the assemblies. This decision was rooted in procedural grounds, specifically the SIC’s failure to submit a timely list of candidates eligible for these seats. In response, the SIC escalated the matter to the judiciary, contesting the ECP’s ruling first in the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and subsequently in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s involvement followed a series of nine hearings where rigorous arguments were presented by all concerned parties. The federal government and the ECP staunchly defended their stance, advocating for stringent adherence to electoral rules that mandate qualifying criteria for reserved seats. They argued that political entities must participate in elections, secure at least one seat, and submit requisite candidate lists within prescribed deadlines to qualify for reserved seats. Conversely, the SIC emphasized its electoral alliances and the potentially transformative impact of the PHC’s ruling, which favored the ruling coalition by denying the PTI-backed SIC candidates access to reserved seats. This decision, if upheld, could significantly tilt the balance of power within the National Assembly, consolidating the ruling coalition’s legislative strength.
The Supreme Court’s verdict assumes critical significance beyond its immediate legal implications. It stands as a test of judicial independence and integrity, ensuring impartiality in electoral disputes and upholding constitutional mandates amidst complex political maneuvering. The decision holds the potential to redefine political alliances, parliamentary configurations, and legislative agendas, echoing far-reaching ramifications for Pakistan’s democratic framework. As Pakistan awaits the final judgment, anticipation among political circles intensifies. The outcome will not only dictate the allocation of contested reserved seats but also influence strategic alliances and policy trajectories in the coming legislative sessions. It underscores the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding electoral integrity, thereby reinforcing public trust in democratic institutions.
The controversy over reserved seats arose following the February 8 elections, where more than 80 independent candidates supported by PTI secured victories and later joined the SIC, seeking seats reserved for minorities and women. However, the ECP rejected their claims, citing the SIC’s failure to submit a candidate list. Subsequently, the SIC escalated the matter to the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the ECP’s decision. Unsatisfied with this outcome, the SIC appealed to the Supreme Court, aiming to overturn the PHC’s ruling and secure 67 reserved seats for women and 11 for minorities. The allocation of these seats holds significant implications as it could alter the balance of power in the opposition benches.
The PTI-backed SIC candidates lost 77 reserved seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies due to the PHC’s verdict, granting the ruling coalition, consisting of PML-N, PPP, and their allies, a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. This decision increased PML-N’s seats to 123 and PPP’s to 73, while the SIC held 82 seats. A three-member Supreme Court bench, including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard the appeal on June 6. The bench temporarily suspended the PHC’s verdict and the ECP’s decision, which had deprived the ruling coalition of its parliamentary majority. Both the federal government and the ECP have vehemently opposed the SIC’s plea. The government, represented by Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, argued that reserved seats should only be allocated to parties that contested the elections, won at least one seat, and submitted their candidate list by the deadline.
The ECP supported this stance, emphasizing the SIC’s failure to meet the submission deadline. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the reserved seats dispute underscores its role as a guardian of constitutional principles and electoral fairness. Regardless of the verdict, it will set a precedent for future electoral challenges, guiding the conduct of political actors and the governance landscape in Pakistan. In essence, the verdict’s aftermath will resonate as a testament to Pakistan’s commitment to democratic norms and judicial impartiality, shaping the nation’s political trajectory for years to come. This decision marks a pivotal moment in Pakistan’s democratic journey, highlighting the judiciary’s proactive role in upholding transparency, accountability, and the rule of law in electoral processes.
(The writer is a health professional and works at various capacities with ultimate knowledge of national and international issues, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
