Amendments to election laws cannot overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the reserved seats case, the apex court clarified on Friday, a major blow to the ruling coalition ahead of its plans to bring judicial reforms.
“The amendments made in the Elections Act after the release of our short order will have no bearing and the commission is bound to implement the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its letter and spirit, without seeking any further clarification,” the top court said.
It was another clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the allocation of reserved seats to Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.**
The clarification was made at the request of the Election Commission of Pakistan. According to the majority opinion of the eight judges, the amendment cannot invalidate the decision.
On July 12, a full bench of 13 judges determined that the opposition party, PTI, was entitled to reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in both the national and provincial assemblies.
The decision posed a significant challenge to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s ruling coalition and could potentially position the PTI as the largest party in Parliament.
The top court also recognised the PTI as a parliamentary party. The majority judgment indicated that 39 out of the 80 members of the National Assembly listed as PTI candidates by the ECP were indeed affiliated with the party. The remaining 41 independents were required to submit properly signed and notarised statements to the ECP within 15 days, confirming that they had contested the February 8 general elections as candidates of specific political parties.
On Friday, judges stated that the application of the amendment to the Election Act would not be retroactive, and the country’s top electoral authority “is obligated” to implement the court’s decision “without seeking further clarification.”
SC judges remarked that they had already issued a clarification prior to the detailed decision, and the reason for allowing a request for clarification was to “prevent any difficulties in executing the short order.”
Since the detailed decision has been issued, they said that there was “no longer a need for any further clarification,” as all legal and constitutional points have been addressed in the detailed ruling.
“Since the commission and PTI both have asked for a second clarification, we want to simply clarify and reiterate the well-settled exposition of law that the effect of the amendment made in the Elections Act cannot undo our judgment with retrospective effect.”
The court added: “The detailed reasons have already been released and all legal and constitutional issues raised and argued by the parties have been dealt with eloquently and answered, therefore, no further clarification is required to be issued. The judgment of this court has binding effect in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and should have been implemented.”
Earlier in the day, Chief Election Commissioner Sikander Sultan Raja presided over a consultative meeting regarding suspended members on reserved seats.
According to sources, the legal team provided a “final recommendation” for implementing the Election Act. They clarified that enforcement of laws approved by Parliament “is mandatory for all authorities.”
The legal team informed that once the amendment to the Act is approved, the Supreme Court’s order “becomes ineffective.” They also proposed the reinstatement of the suspended members on reserved seats.
They added that the commission would make a final decision on such proposals. It is noteworthy that a significant and decisive meeting regarding reserved seats was held by the ECP, during which speakers were called in for consultation with the legal team on the matter.
During the meeting, the speakers reviewed the letters, and the legal team provided a briefing. Prior to this, sources had suggested that the meeting would be conclusive and that a decision was likely.
The ECP had allocated reserved seats, with 15 going to the PML-N, four to the PPP, and three to the JUI-F. But following the Supreme Court’s decision, such allocations were declared vacant or disputed.
