[ad_1]
“The majority order will go a long way in restoring confidence in the judiciary,” says lawyer Rida Hosain.
In what is being called a big win for Imran Khan and his party, the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday threw out the Peshawar High Court’s order denying reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to the PTI-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).
The majority verdict was announced by a 13-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa — who was one of the five judges who dissented with the ruling — after marathon hearings. “The PTI is a political party and will remain one,” the top court remarked.
It added that depriving a political party of its electoral symbol does not push it out of elections. The SC also termed the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to deny reserved seats to the SIC as null and void, terming it “against the Constitution of Pakistan”.
Earlier this year, the SIC was joined by PTI-backed independent candidates after they won the February 8 elections as their party had been deprived of its electoral symbol ‘bat’. In March, the ECP had declared that the SIC was not entitled to claim the quota for reserved seats and distributed them among other parliamentary parties.
Here is what lawyers had to say about today’s verdict:
‘Restoring confidence in judiciary’
Speaking to Dawn.com, lawyer Rida Hosain termed the order “a damning indictment of ECP’s conduct”.
“Eleven judges have held that the ECP incorrectly interpreted the bat symbol judgment and wrongfully deprived the PTI of its right to take part in elections. The majority reverses the disastrous consequences of the ECP’s decisions and ensures that the legislature reflects the people’s will,” she said.
Hosain pointed out that the court had effectively held that the PTI remained a political party, it secured general seats and the Constitution commanded that the party was entitled to reserved seats as per its proportional strength of general seats.
“Independent judges taking decisions without fear or favour gives citizens hope. The majority order will go a long way in restoring confidence in the judiciary,” the lawyer added.
‘Will of the people’
“The Supreme Court has found for the will of the people that elected representatives be allowed their rightful strength in the assembly,” remarked Barrister Asad Rahim.
He noted that the top court had gone some distance in repairing the damage of the “ludicrous” bat symbol judgment.
“It nonetheless must be said that the court pulled us out of a problem entirely of its own making. Had this unity of purpose and commitment to the Constitution been on display during the 90-day election judgment, the challenge to 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,” he stated.
The people, Barrister Rahim continued, were 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.
‘There is hope’
In a post on X, lawyer Salaar Khan remarked that the SC stood by the people of Pakistan, their Constitution and the right side of history today.
“There is hope, yet,” he added.
‘Adding to bad jurisprudence’
On the other hand, Barrister Yasser Latif Hamdani noted that the SC decision showed the impact that “perception of public opinion has on judgments”.
“Going by the letter of the law, there is no argument that independents don’t get reserved seats. However, the perception of fairness has seemingly trumped the letter of the law,” he told Dawn.com.
The lawyer pointed out that the division between the judges on the issue was indicative of the ideological debate within the legal circles on the use of the letter of the law (originalism) versus the living Constitution theory.
“Going by the letter of the law, the court’s decision to uphold the ECP’s decision on the symbol issue was the right one. Everything emanates from that. The law is clear: independents don’t get reserved seats. And since the intent of the reserved seats is to ensure representation for minorities and women, it makes perfect sense for these to be distributed amongst the remaining parties,” he said.
“For these reasons, this judgment adds to bad jurisprudence, especially to what started with the case pertaining to the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution.”
[ad_2]
Source link
