Political analysts and experts have weighed in on the Supreme Court's ruling in favour of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), declaring the party eligible of reserved seats and the subsequent political repercussions that it might might result in.
The 8-5 majority verdict announced by the 13-member full court bench nullified the Peshawar High Court's (PHC) order wherein it had upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision denying the reserved seats to the SIC.
"The PHC's judgement dated March 25 is set aside. The order of the ECP dated March 1 is declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect," read the verdict.
Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Athar Minallah, Shahid Waheed, Muneeb Akhtar, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Irfan Saadat Khan ruled in favour of the PTI.
The judges who disagreed with the majority judgment include Chief Justice Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and Justices Yahya Afridi, Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
'PTI, PPP could join hands'
Reacting to the SC judgment, veteran journalist and analyst Hamid Mir, while speaking to Geo News, revealed that the Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar believed that today’s verdict wasn’t according to the Constitution but in fact, was a “popular decision”.
Stressing that it is possible that the government might file a review petition, Mir noted that opting for such a course of action won’t be fruitful for Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s administration.
"The key question [now] is whether the prevailing political crisis would come to an end if the PTI get its reserved seats leaving the government unable to introduce any constitutional amendment?" he said.
Noting that the government has no option but to engage in talks with the former ruling party, he said that the government and its ministers are disconnected from ground realities since they had hoped the verdict to be in their favour.
Highlighting that no one can stop the PTI from securing its reserved seats, the analyst said that the government might still attempt to create hurdles.
“Today’s verdict will not only affect the Centre but its repercussions will also be felt in Punjab as well,” he noted.
Reflecting on the three-member CJP Isa-led bench that upheld the ECP’s decision of depriving the PTI of its “bat symbol” Mir said that the responsibility for PTI getting knocked out of the polls lies on the chief justice regardless of his complaint that his verdict was “misinterpreted”.
Commenting on what the future might look like, the journalist said that since the federal government depends upon its political crutches, it is possible that the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), who have time again expressed their reservations on the Center's policies, might join hands with the PTI and support their vote of no confidence motion if the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) fails to fulfil its promises.
PTI doesn't need SIC anymore
Zahid F Ebrahim, Founding Partner at FGE Ebrahim Hosain, told Geo News that not only will the PTI get its reserved seats, but it will also come back to the parliament as a party and will not need the platform of the SIC.
"The Supreme Court has recognised [...] that the PTI was a party. I think that this a judgment of 11 judges as they have acknowledged that those who filed their papers as PTI candidates, they should be considered PTI candidates."
Ebrahim noted that all parties should accept the apex court's decision.
'More complicated'
Former attorney general for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf told Geo News that the SIC was the party that moved the Supreme Court, Peshawar High Court, and the Election Commission of Pakistan.
"This decision wasn't in favour of the Sunni Ittehad Council. So, is the SIC going to file a review or was all this just a proxy — maybe someone was using these puppets," he said.
Ausaf added that as a student of law, he doesn't see the legal confusion going away after this verdict and that it had made the situation "more complicated".
The former AGP said that the PTI's case wasn't presented before the SC, it was the SIC. Either the parliament should have been given the task of assigning the reserved seats of the ECP.
He added that the Supreme Court interpreters the Constitution and is not an institution that makes laws.
'Critical verdict in Pakistan's history'
Anchorperson Shahzeb Khanzada said the top court verdict would not affect the government’s formation as it was formed with a majority of the PML-N and PPP. However, it definitely granted the PTI its due right, he added.
He said the government could change if the election results were announced as per Form 45, instead of Form 47, and the PTI's claim that they secured a majority of the seats turned out to be true and a speedy trial was held over this claim.
"This [verdict] though has deprived the government of a two-third majority [which could affect the government's plans] as the government had announced to make numerous amendments in the Constitution as it held a majority of 228 members."
"When they have lost 22 seats, it means they have lost two-thirds majority. Hence, they can no longer make amendments to the Constitution," he said.
Khanzada termed this a critical verdict in Pakistan's history and for democracy as well as a big relief for the political party.
He said, the PTI was first stripped of bat symbol, which was already being criticised.
"Obviously, they should not have been deprived of the symbol on technical grounds. Consequently, they were deprived of reserved seats by declaring their candidates independents which raised a plethora of questions as this could create a hurdle for the democracy’s moving forward as the ECP decisions against the PTI were extremely controversial," he said.
The SC has gone further ahead in its verdict by restoring PTI as a party saying that if a party could not get an electoral symbol it did not mean that it was no more a political party, he said.
The anchorperson said they were not granted the election symbol, but party candidates contested on various symbols and secured victory. As per the SC, he said, when they entered the parliament they could declare themselves as candidate of the PTI, after proving their affiliation with the party.
"The PTI candidates have been given the chance to prove their affiliation with a party and the PTI has been asked to give its reserved seats’ list," he said lauding the court order.
'Surprising'
Former deputy attorney general Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, while speaking to Geo.tv, said that the SC's verdict will prove to be the "worst decision" among the other verdicts in Pakistan's judicial history.
"I am unable to understand this until today that why does our judiciary [announce verdicts] outside its domain when its job is to give justice to the helpless, oppressed and people who go through hardships for justice," questioned Khan.
He said: "Instead of providing justice, the [judiciary] gets involved in politics and sometimes validates the actions of a dictator or intervenes in parliament's jurisdiction/domain and exercise those powers which are vested to the parliament," said the ex-deputy AG.
Khan termed today's verdict "surprising", saying that Article 51 (6)(d) says that the reserved seats will only be allocated to the party which submitted its nomination papers for the reserved seats or a list for the reserved seats.
"The SC will make a decision on the basis of propriety. These nomination papers and a list are submitted within a stipulated time. The PTI participated in the elections on the basis of independents and their members did not participate in the elections as a party as their electoral symbol 'bat' was stripped of," he highlighted.
He further said SIC had written to the ECP as a party that "we are not going to contest the elections" and even the party's head contested the polls as an independent member.
"He also failed to provide a list regarding the reserved seats. Their party's constitution states that none of the non-Muslim candidates can become [member of the parliament]. Hence, they are not entitled to reserved seats for the minorities," Khan stated.
"According to the Election Act's Section 140, the seats will be distributed proportionally and will be allocated to the parties which have submitted the list of reserved seats to the ECP. However, PTI and SIC both were unable to do it," said the former deputy attorney general.
"The rules of the Election Act 2017 explain how the seats will be distributed but the majority verdict accepted SIC's plea," he added.
Protection of voters' rights
Speaking to Geo.tv, Barrister Ahmad Pansota noted that today's judgement has established that the lack of an election symbol doesn't affect any legal or political rights of a political party.
"The political party exists, which means PTI existed at the time when the elections took place and 39 out of 80 people who had mentioned PTI in their nomination form where they also can test it from PTI and the remaining 41 now have a 15-day time period or a seven day time period to clarify," said Pansota.
The lawyer further noted that the verdict has essentially ensured the protection of the voters' rights.
Redressal of damage of CJP's election symbol verdict
Reacting to the majority ruling, Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said that the court found for the will of the people that elected representatives be allowed their rightful strength in the assembly.
"It has also gone some distance in repairing the damage of the ludicrous bat symbol judgement by this chief justice," the lawyer said while speaking to Geo.tv.
"It must be said that the court pulled us out of a problem entirely of its own making," he said.
Pansota further noted that had this unity of purpose and commitment to the Constitution been on display during the 90-day election verdict, the passage of the bogus practice and procedure law, and the formation of benches that froze the military trials verdict as well as the Lahore High Court’s election tribunals, Pakistan would be in a much better place today.
"The people are entitled to live in a democracy. They shouldn’t have to wait for the threat of constitutional amendments (that directly affect senior judges) to bring about such outcomes," he added.
'Win for the people'
Barrister Rida Hossain, while speaking to Geo.tv, said that the legislature must reflect the will of the people and that today's order underscores the unlawful and unjust actions of the ECP.
There is a constitutional duty on the ECP to act honestly, justly, and fairly under Article 218(3) of the Constitution. The electoral watchdog failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation, and instead, incorrectly deprived PTI of its right to contest elections," she said.
"Loss of an election symbol does not mean a political party ceases to exist," the lawyer added.
Hossain remarked that the majority has found that PTI remains a political party, PTI secured general seats, and consequently, it is entitled to reserved seats as set out in the Constitution.
"The decision upholds the people's mandate. And it is a win for the people," she remarked.
'Re-writing of Constitution'
Speaking to Geo.tv, Hafiz Ahsan Ahmad Khokhar, a renowned constitutional, said that today's verdict reflects the independence of the judiciary and the SC and that it is not subjected to any interference.
"No judicial intervention in the apex court as argued by a narrative that has existed for the past couple of years including campaigns against the top court’s chief justice’s including incumbent CJP Isa."
"Political parties should be careful in crediting or discrediting the country’s judicial system as it suits them," he said.
On the constitutional aspect of the ruling, Khokhar said that he believe that the court exceeded the jurisdiction and mandate of Article 185 of the Constitution and amounts to "re-writing" and "reading into" of the Constitution.
"I believe that the ruling is not in line with the Constitutional and legal provisions,” he said.
On the allocation of reserved seats to the PTI, he said that the development is rather unprecedented as a political party, the PTI, wasn't part of the whole process, to begin with and neither sought reserved seats from the ECP nor challenged its decision in the SC.
The advocate warned that today's ruling might create legal and constitutional issues for the apex court in future.
"It wasn't the SC's job to re-engineer the process and re-invent a new clock," he noted, adding that the relevant legal provisions only allow the allocation of reserved seats to only those political parties who are part of the whole process and qualify for them and the PTI only benefited from the electoral body’s conduct.
