On Monday, the Supreme Court finally released its detailed verdict on the reserved seats case, reaffirming the PTI as a legitimate political party, entitled to reserved seats for women and minorities. Penned by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the much-awaited detailed judgment comes over two months after the short order the apex court had issued on July 12, and just days after National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq had argued that the ruling could not be implemented following amendments to the Election Act. The detailed verdict predictably lays out a firm stance: the absence of an electoral symbol does not disqualify a party from participating in elections. Not only that, the court’s criticism of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is scathing. The ECP, as a “guarantor institution” of democracy, was expected to uphold transparency and fairness in the electoral process. Instead, says the Supreme Court, the ECP acted as a primary adversarial party against both the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and the PTI, rather than an impartial steward of elections.
More striking, however, is the court’s rebuke of its own dissenting judges, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. These judges had in a dissenting note opined that the PTI was not a party before the court and that the majority ruling violated constitutional norms. The detailed judgment has criticized the tone and manner of the dissent, suggesting it lacked the courtesy and restraint expected of judges from the nation’s highest court. Regardless of who stands on which side of the issue, observers have noted that there is a clear and alarming intra-judiciary tension, which speaks to a growing divide within the bench. Not that the government’s reaction has been any less comforting. The federal law minister has echoed Speaker Ayaz Sadiq’s view, stating that the law governing independent candidates joining political parties within three days is clear and that further clarification may come through a review appeal. This signals a brewing conflict between the executive and the judiciary, with the government appearing reluctant to implement the verdict. While parliament’s legislative supremacy is a valid argument, legal experts have stressed that a verdict by the apex court – whether palatable or not – is binding and must be adhered to by the ECP.
The broader implications of this stalemate cannot be ignored. On the one hand, the SC verdict is being celebrated by many legal experts as a victory for democracy, restoring the electoral rights of independents who contested with the PTI’s backing. On the other hand, the government’s resistance to implementing the judgment foreshadows a clash between two key branches of the state. Such a tussle, if prolonged, could erode the already fragile trust in Pakistan’s institutions and fuel political instability. The schism within the judiciary itself is an ominous development. The last thing the country needs amid its myriad crises is a power struggle between its institutions. At this juncture, the ECP has no choice but to ensure that the SC’s ruling is implemented in full. Any further delay or ambiguity in executing the court’s order will only exacerbate tensions.