he recent Supreme Court case involving Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and Sunni Ittehad Council revolved around the allocation and nomination processes for reserved seats in the provincial and federal legislatures. The case was triggered by disputes over the transparency and fairness of the nomination procedures adopted by these parties. In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for transparency and adherence to constitutional provisions in the nomination process for reserved seats. The court mandated that political parties must follow a fair and transparent process, ensuring that their nominees for reserved seats are selected based on merit and representativeness. The ruling also reinforced the proportional representation system, emphasising that any deviation from this principle undermines the constitutional mandate. The court’s decision was grounded in the principles of constitutionalism and rule of law. It highlighted that the reserved seats system is integral to promoting inclusivity and must be protected from political manipulation. The ruling has set a precedent for future cases, ensuring that the process for filling reserved seats remains transparent and just.

The parliament is structured as a bicameral legislature with reserved seats for women and minorities that hold a crucial role in ensuring diverse representation within the National Assembly. This system is pivotal in promoting inclusivity and equality, enshrined in the constitution as fundamental principles.

The concept of reserved seats for women and minorities in Pakistan’s National Assembly dates back to the early years of the country’s formation. This system was established to address historical under-representation and to ensure that these groups had a voice in the legislative process. Initially, the allocation was limited and often influenced by prevailing political dynamics. The very first time that women attained reserved seats was in 1956 when the unicameral legislature was replaced with a bilateral legislature and five seats were reserved for women. This number increased gradually to reach 60.

The current constitution contains unique provisions to encourage women’s participation in the legislative bodies. If all seats in a general election are won by political parties, a party is allocated a seat reserved for women for every 3.5 general seats. The National Assembly has a total of 336 seats, 266 of which are general seats and 60 reserved for women. The Punjab is represented by 32 women, Sindh 14, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 10, and Balochistan 4. Political parties submit a list of their nominations for these reserved seats. The ECP assigns the seats based on the parties’ overall performance. Parties with a larger share of the general seats obtain a proportionately larger number of reserved seats for women. Seats reserved for religious minorities are distributed based on minority populations in various provinces. As equal citizens, they have the same rights to run for general seats. These seats are assigned to parties based on the proportion of general seats they win in the election. Non-Muslim seats are allocated based on the total distribution of seats in the National Assembly, rather than per province. The purpose is to ensure that minorities from around the country are represented at the federal level. For these, too, political parties submit lists of their nominees.

The reserved seats system has significantly impacted political representation in Pakistan. It has facilitated the entry of women and minority leaders into mainstream politics, enhancing their visibility and influence. Moreover, it has compelled political parties to address issues pertinent to these groups, thereby broadening the scope of political discourse. However, the system has not escaped criticism. Some people have argued that it has perpetuated tokenism rather than genuine empowerment.

Over the years, several amendments have been made to Article 51 to refine and expand the provisions for reserved seats. Significant amendments include the Eighth Amendment in 1985, which increased the number of reserved seats for women, and the Seventeenth Amendment in 2003, which altered the allocation to ensure broader representation. These amendments have been pivotal in shaping the current structure and functioning of the reserved seats system.

The current interpretation of Article 51 emphasises proportional representation and inclusivity. It mandates that reserved seats be filled through a proportional representation system based on the total number of general seats won by each political party. This framework ensures that the reserved seats genuinely reflect the political landscape and do not merely serve as symbolic positions.

The ECP follows a strict procedure for the allocation of reserved seats. After the general elections, political parties submit their lists of nominees for reserved seats. These lists must adhere to specific criteria, including gender and minority representation. The ECP then allocates seats based on the proportion of general seats each party has won, ensuring compliance with Article 51. Any discrepancies or challenges to the nominations are reviewed and resolved by the ECP, maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. Given its crucial role, the ECP has faced several challenges in administering reserved seats. These have included allegations of political interference, lack of transparency in the nomination process and logistical issues. Critics argue that the ECP needs to enhance its oversight mechanisms and ensure stricter compliance with the constitutional provisions to prevent manipulation and favouritism.

The latest Supreme Court verdict has elicited varied reactions from the political parties and analysts. The PTI and the SIC have expressed concerns over its impact on their internal processes. Many political analysts and civil society organisations have welcomed the decision, viewing it as a step towards greater accountability and fairness in the political system. In the long term, the verdict is likely to lead to more stringent processes for nominating candidates for reserved seats. Political parties will need to develop clear and transparent criteria for selection. This could enhance the overall quality of representation. Additionally, the ruling may prompt other parties to reassess and improve their internal democratic processes.

Beyond the immediate political ramifications, the ruling has significant implications for constitutional law and minority representation in Pakistan. It reaffirms the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and the rule of law in the political process. For minorities and women, the decision reinforces the legitimacy of their representation in the National Assembly, potentially leading to greater advocacy and legislative action on issues affecting these groups. Article 51, along with the recent Supreme Court ruling and the role of the Election Commission of Pakistan, has been brought to light highlighting the importance of transparency and fairness in the political process. The decision has far reaching implications, influencing the future of political representation and constitutional law in Pakistan. As the country moves forward, it is essential to continue refining and protecting these provisions to ensure that all voices are heard and represented in the national discourse.

The writer is the CEO at ZAK Casa and Verde as well as a managing partner at a law firm, namely Lex Mercatoria