By Qamar Bashir
The Supreme Court (SC), in its landmark decision announced today (11.07.2024),
surprised the government, the supra executive, and all political parties, including the
beneficiaries of leftover reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, as well as the PTI.
However, it did not surprise those who had diligently been following the Supreme
Court’s hearings on the impugned case, petitioned by the Sunni Ittehad Council through
their brilliant lawyer, Faisal Siddiqui.
On June 4, 2024, during the first hearing of the SC telecast live, I was glued to the TV
screen, trying to absorb and educate myself from the highly intense, intricate, and
complex proceedings of the SC in the impugned case. I was amazed at how each judge
intensely, aggressively, and independently strove to grasp any end of the jumbled thread
of legal, political, and social intricacies of the case in an attempt to untangle the
complexity.
In the evening, I wrote an article titled “Judges vs Judges,” published in the national daily
on the same day. The concluding paragraph stated, “After diligently and carefully
observing both sides, the likely judgment is a split verdict from the full bench, which may
restore PTI as a party in the National and Provincial Assemblies and allocate the reserved
seats to it.”
In another article titled “PTI’s Fate Hangs on Form vs. Substance,” penned on June 24
following the SC hearing, I commented, “During the discussion, an important concept of
'form and substance,' distinguishing between the procedural aspects of a legal matter
(form) and its core issues and merits (substance), was discussed. I hoped that substance,
not form, would prevail, meaning that fundamental rights and justice would triumph.”
In an article titled “PTI: From Hardships to Hope,” I wrote, “We can expect a decision
that may surprise both the establishment and the government alike and will have a
significant impact on the composition of the National and Provincial Assemblies and the
governments.” After the last Supreme Court hearing, I wrote, “This judgment may either
put the country back on the constitutional path or…” These layman observations were
reflective of the correct intent of the Supreme Court's full bench.
While lawyers, commentators, analysts, and jurists welcomed the decision, the
government, which is not even a party to the case, through its law minister reacted
angrily to the split verdict, stating that the SC had overstepped its authority by
interpreting the constitution in a way that amounted to rewriting it. He added that this
decision thwarted the government's attempt to bring constitutional amendments to
censure judges who were negligent in their duties and to hold them accountable for their
omissions and commissions.
Other commentators observed that the judiciary has finally liberated itself from the
influence of the executive and has asserted its independence. They argued that the
government’s proposed constitutional amendments were aimed at reasserting control over
the judiciary after their unlawful means to control the judiciary finally failed. The SC, by
this judgment, they noted, has thwarted such attempts.
The observers are of the view that the SC, which has set the ball rolling after restoring the
PTI as a political party, will not stop anytime soon. They believe it will extend to
claiming over 80 seats in the national assembly and several seats in the Punjab assembly,
which were allegedly stolen from it by altering, fudging, frauding, and manipulating the
election results on Form 47 by the returning officers. It would also extend to demanding
the liberation of their leader, Imran Khan, and the annulment of the amendment made in
the Election Act 2024, which was bulldozed by the parliament with members who were
allegedly beneficiaries of PTI's stolen seats. These amendments have given the EC power
to appoint tribunals without consulting the Chief Justices of the High Courts.
The PTI has already challenged this amendment. They may have many cogent reasons to
offer while seeking the annulment of the amendments by the respective high courts. First,
they may argue that, on the universal principle of the separation of the executive from the
judiciary, the tribunal cannot be appointed either by the government or the Election
Commission without consultation with the judiciary.
Second, the SC has declared that the EC harbored bad mala fide intent against the PTI,
and the EC was a party against the SIC and PTI in the impugned case. Therefore, the EC
cannot appoint Election Tribunals, where the EC and its appointed ROs will be the main
defendants. Third, since the elections were conducted based on the Election Amendment
Act 2023, any amendments made thereafter should, on all legal, moral, and ethical
grounds, apply to the next elections.
Furthermore, they may argue that the parliament passed the bill in undue haste, without
referring it to the standing committees of both the National Assembly and the Senate for
proper consultation and failed to achieve broader support for the bill.
They may also argue that the bill was consented to by those members who were illegally
made part of the parliament on the reserved seats for women and minorities, which
actually belonged to the PTI. Moreover, the bill was passed by an incomplete house;
therefore, it may be annulled and referred back to the parliament for reconsideration after
both houses are complete and the bill is properly evaluated by the respective committees
of both the NA and the Senate.
I may close this article with the layman's views offered by my wife after the SC’s
decision. She said, "When the court makes a decision that appears to have delivered
justice, it gives us hope for a brighter future and motivates us to make our country
prosper. Conversely, it creates despair, hopelessness, and extinguishes the light even at
the end of the tunnel, causing society to lose confidence in the system and its own
strength.
Let us hope that our judiciary continues to strictly adhere to the constitution and provides
the nation with the hope of a better future."
