EDITORIAL: For all intents and purposes the short orders delivered by superior courts are final and must be implemented whether or not the parties concerned like them.
Yet the Supreme Court’s July 12 eight to five majority verdict announced in a short order on the crucial question of assemblies’ reserved seats remains ignored by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and roundly criticised by the ruling coalition.
Although the earlier order was quite clear, the 70-page detailed order authored by senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, issued on Monday, meticulously addresses all the points raised by the ECP and its apologists.
Justice Shah has also expressed his disappointment over the two brother judges’ dissenting notes in which they said the majority judgement was not in accordance with the Constitution.
Acknowledging that as members of the bench they could legitimately differ on the issues of fact and law, Justice Shah has observed that “they appear to have gone beyond the parameters of propriety by warning the 39 plus 41 (80) returned candidates and urging the [election] commission not to comply with the majority order”.
Many, including legal experts, would be nodding in agreement as the honourable Justice Shah added that “such observations undermine the integrity of the highest institution of justice in the country and seem to constitute an attempt to obstruct the process of the court and the administration of justice”.
Since the ECP had gone to the court on the issue of reserved seats but wouldn’t implement its verdict, the detailed order notes that a body performing its quasi-judicial function in a matter between two rivals cannot be treated as an aggrieved party if its decision is set aside or modified by a higher forum or by a court of competent jurisdiction. And therefore, it does not have locus standi to challenge the decision of higher forum or court, nor can such a body contest an appeal filed against its quasi-judicial decision by one of the rival parties as a primary contesting party.
As regards the principal argument of the rejectionists — mainly beneficiaries of ECP’s approach — that the PTI was granted relief even though it had not fulfilled the procedural formality to apply for the same, in its detailed reasoning the court explains that its concern was the protection of the right of vote of the electorate guaranteed under articles 17(2) and 19 of the Constitution, more than the right of any political party, whether it be the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) or the PTI or any other party.
Furthermore, explained Justice Shah, the constitutional power of the Supreme Court under Article 187 (1) was to do “complete justice” when there was no specific provision of law that covered the matter. In the first place, the whole issue was triggered when an apex court bench denied the PTI its electoral symbol of ‘bat’ though almost the entire bench declared the PTI was a legitimate political party.
But the ECP failed to notify accordingly, impelling the party to seek the SIC’s cover to claim a just right on the basis of its strong showing in the February 8 general elections.
Unfortunately, the ruling coalition has once again rejected reallocation of reserved seats to the PTI, nullifying the court’s order and eroding the apex court’s authority. This can only lead the country into uncharted territory, deepening the political crisis with serious repercussions for the economy, already in a mess.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024