FOR the umpteenth time in the last two years, the legislature has been used to impose the will of the powerful on the country. Lawmakers from the ruling coalition on Tuesday voted in favour of a bill to make retrospective amendments to the Elections Act, 2017, with the apparent aim of ‘neutralising’ the Supreme Court’s majority judgement in the reserved seats case. Audacious as the measure is, it was not unexpected. Shortly after the Supreme Court had ordered the restoration of the PTI in the legislatures and ruled against the ECP’s decision to gift its rival parties more reserved seats than they were entitled to under the rules of proportional representation, various government representatives had made it clear that the decision would not be implemented. After it emerged that an urgent review of the judgement would not be possible while the court was in recess, the government chose to introduce new legislation to reinforce its claim that parliament supersedes other principal state institutions. It is unclear what will happen next. The roadmap given to the ECP for implementation of the Supreme Court’s verdict expires soon, but it has now been given licence to defy it.

Eleven of the 13 judges who heard the case agreed that the ECP committed several illegalities in the run-up to the election, which consequently denied the PTI its right to take full part in the elections. Now, the Supreme Court’s act of undoing this injustice is being made controversial. It would have been best if the detailed verdict for the reserved seats case had been released sooner. With the reasoning behind the majority verdict available, it would have been easier to clear the various controversies that have arisen over the short order. For example, the public could have understood better why eight judges of the Supreme Court allowed those candidates who had contested elections on behalf of the PTI but could not make a formal declaration of their party affiliation another chance to make their affiliation known. The government has attacked this provision as being akin to ‘rewriting’ the Constitution, even though many observers in the legal community believe the Supreme Court simply exercised its power to do ‘complete justice’. The judges behind the majority judgement must clear the air and end this controversy for good.

Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2024