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:

‘Justice trumps technicalities’

Speaking to Dawn.com, lawyer and politician Moiz Jaferii stated that the SC had today decided that “justice should trump technicalities”.

“It has determined that the will of the people cannot be thwarted based upon what Justice Munib Akhtar termed a cascade of errors. A cascade initiated by the ECP. A cascade rightfully arrested and reversed today.”

He remarked that the mandate of the people was “unexpected” and termed it the “few engineering against the many”.

“The majority of the SC decided it wanted no part to play in such scheming. It distanced itself from the January 13 decision and its aftermath. It decided that it was best to let the people decide after all,” the lawyer said, adding that in this particular battle, the people had won.

“Substance has triumphed over form. Hearts and minds have won over pencil-pushing pedantry.”

Jaferii said that the top court had decided that power belonged to the people and it was their will and intent that should triumph. “That technical trappings are all well and good, but they must not be allowed to subvert the clear and expressed will of millions who voted. That the many must prevail over the few.

“This was never about reserved seats. It was always about a minority government being pushed into power through a farcical process that began when the time to vote ended. An African dictator once said something along the lines of you can vote but I will count them. The SC today stopped a similar farce from playing out in Pakistan,” he added.

‘Restoring confidence in judiciary’

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.

‘Correcting a wrong’

Meanwhile, lawyer Basil Nabi Malik said the SC decision was about “correcting a wrong” that took place on Feb 8 and was “continued by the judiciary subsequently”.

“Although the PTI itself was not at the forefront in these proceedings, it appears the Supreme Court has invoked its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice, and frankly, if there was a time to invoke such powers, it would have been now,” he stated.

“The fundamental principle on which any decision should have been taken was not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of that law, as embodied by a robust and vibrant constitutional democracy in Pakistan. It seems the Supreme Court has done just that,” the lawyer 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.”