By Raza Ruman
“The verdict is finally out, but will it make any difference? After weeks of anticipation, the Supreme Court’s detailed reasoning in the reserved seats case was made public on Monday. However, the judgment, endorsed by the full court, was swiftly rejected by the ruling PML-N,” Dawn writes in its editorial.
The party dismissed it on social media platform X, calling it “a political decision” made by “eight specific judges in violation of their oath, to benefit a party that thrives on chaos and division.”
This reaction appeared hasty, especially in light of the 70 pages of carefully reasoned arguments explaining why 11 of the 13 judges, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan, concluded that the PTI had been wronged by the ECP and was deserving of relief. Moreover, eight of these judges diverged from the other three on the specific nature of the relief to be provided.
It is worth noting that the core of the judgment had already been released in July. After a first reading of the detailed reasoning, it remains unclear why the ECP and the government reacted so strongly and negatively from the outset. The Supreme Court, in fact, unanimously rejected two key arguments put forward by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) and the PTI: firstly, that the SIC was entitled to reserved seats based on the strength of its parliamentary party despite not having won a single seat directly; and secondly, that reserved seats could not be distributed to parties other than the SIC, even if the SIC itself was not entitled to them.
The judgment emphasizes that the ECP’s original misstep — its refusal to allow candidates to contest as PTI nominees, in direct violation of the Constitution and the law — necessitated judicial intervention to correct the error.
The ruling also underscores that the court viewed this case as more than just a dispute between political parties. It acted to protect the electorate’s rights, not to favor any particular political faction. Given this, the government’s stance appears rather weak. Is it risking contempt of court simply because the Supreme Court identified a mistake by the ECP and exercised its constitutional authority to ensure justice? Furthermore, how can the government morally defend its position when it is the direct beneficiary of actions now deemed unlawful and unconstitutional by the court?
Had this detailed judgment been released earlier, much of the surrounding controversy might have been avoided. Now that it has been made public, the government has a choice: either seek a review of the decision or accept it as it stands. Refusing to implement the ruling is a dangerous course of action, one that could threaten the very foundations of the state. PAK DESTINY
