SHC moved against allocation of NA, PA seats on basis of 24th amendment

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday directed the counsel of a petitioner who challenged the allocation of seats on the basis of the 24th constitutional amendments to satisfy the court about the maintainability of the petition.

Syed Mureed Ali Shah submitted in the petition that through the 24th constitutional amendment, the parliament had radically disturbed the concept of one man, one vote and equality of representation by allocating seats of the National Assembly (NA) to each province and the federal capital, except the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (Fata), on the basis of the six national population census conducted in 2017.

He said that due to such irrational disparity it was difficult for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to conduct the next general elections honestly, fairly and in accordance with the law.

He noted that parliament had on December 26, 2017, enacted the 24th constitutional amendment, through which it re-allocated the number of the NA seats to the provinces, the federal capital and Fata on the basis of unofficial provisional results of the 6th Population Census 2017.

He submitted that the election commission had issued on January 15, 2018, a notification that determines and notifies the shares of districts/agencies, Fata and Islamabad Capital Territory in the NA and provincial assemblies’ seats in light of the notified provisional results of the census.

He further stated that as per sections 19 and 20 of the Elections Act, 2017, the NA constituency should be formed between the population ratio of 687,489 and 840,265, and if any constituency was formed below the population of 687,489 or in excess of 840,265 it would amount to disparity, inequality and discrimination, and would disturb the uniformity of the population in the province.

He added that each member of the National Assembly would get equal funding, which would be a grave disparity and discrimination because this way a member from Orakzai Agency of 254,356 population and a member from Kashmor of 1,089,169 population would get the same funding. He said this disparity had been created so that a member with a population of 254,356 and a member with a population of 1,089,169 would have same voting rights in indirect elections, which was a sequel of horse-trading and against Article 25 of the constitution.

He submitted that ECP on March 5 also issued the impugned notification wherein the published preliminary list of the national and provincial assembly constituencies in respect of each province, districts/agencies, Fata and Islamabad Capital Territory for inviting representation/objections from the public on or before April 3, 2018.

The counsel said that the 24th constitutional amendment attempting to equate the delimitation process with each province, districts/agencies, Fata and Islamabad Capital Territory was void due to the disparity in the population criteria.

He stated that the allocation of seats on the basis of the impugned amendment was against the whole aim and the principle of one man, one vote and equality of representation.

The counsel submitted that the share of seats in the NA and the provincial assemblies in respect of each district was worked out on the basis of the population census 2017 of the country except Fata was divided by the total number of general seats and the average population or the quota per National Assembly seat was obtained. He said such irrational disparity was a serious violation of articles 1(2)©, 9, 17, 18, 19, 25, 51(2) and 218(3) of the constitution.

He said the allocation of seats under the impugned amendment would certainly compromise the sanctity and integrity of the sacred institution of the Election Commission of Pakistan, and would blemish its repute and put its credibility at stake.

He maintained that the amendment was inconsistent and in contradiction to articles 1(2)©, 9, 17, 18, 19, 25, 51(2) and 218(3) of the constitution and was ex facie discriminatory, thus ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The court was requested to declare the amendment act whereby amended clauses 3 and5 and inserted proviso in Clause 5 of Article 51 of the constitution as unlawful, ultra vires and inconsistent with a rticles 1(2)©, 9, 17, 18, 19, 25, 51(2) and 218(3) of the constitution.

He also sought interim relief by suspending the operation of the impugned amendment act and notifications of the election commission with regard to the delimitation and allocation of national and provincial assemblies’ constituencies till the pendency of the petition.