Legal experts on Monday praised the Supreme Court’s detailed judgement in the reserved seats case, with one describing it as a “chargesheet” against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and another urging the electoral body to “mend its ways”.

The 70-page verdict, penned by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, elaborated upon its July 12 order, in which it declared the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats in the national and provincial legislatures. It also said that the ECP had failed to perform its role as a “guarantor institution” of democratic processes in the Feb 8 elections.

The verdict also expressed “some doubts” about whether the electoral watchdog had the “power to reject the certificate of intra-party elections submitted by a political party under Section 209, and whether the Commission exercised its discretion under Section 215(5) justly, fairly and reasonably in PTI’s case”, emphasising that the “fundamental right of citizens to vote for the political party of their choice was at stake”.

The SC also observed that the ECP’s numerous “unlawful acts and omissions” had “caused confusion and prejudice to PTI, its candidates and the electorate who voted for PTI”.

Here’s what legal eagles had to say about today’s detailed judgement:

‘Concerns about the ECP’s impartiality’

Barrister Rida Hosain characterises the court’s majority judgment as a “charge sheet against the ECP,” condemning its conduct during the February 8 elections. “According to the judgement, the ECP’s actions failed to meet its constitutional obligations, casting serious doubts over the fairness of the entire electoral process,” she says.

“The highest court of the land has found that ECP’s conduct demonstrates that it failed to fulfill its constitutional role in the 2024 General Elections,” she adds, emphasising that the judgement extends beyond issues related to reserved seats and raising broader concerns about the ECP’s impartiality. According to her, the electoral body had acted not as a neutral watchdog, but as an “adversary of the PTI”.

The lawyer further says that the court’s decision was based on “fundamental democratic principles” and the right of the people to a truly representative legislature. “It is ECP’s incorrect decision that deprived PTI of its right to contest elections, and the electorate cannot be punished for ECP’s blunders. In granting PTI its rightful share of reserved seats, the majority has upheld the people’s mandate and ensured that the legislature represents the people’s voice,” she stresses.

A key aspect of the ruling, as Hosain highlights, was the clarification that reserved seats must be proportionate to the total general seats as it ensures that the balance determined by the electorate is maintained.

“Any other interpretation would mean that the electoral mandate determined by the voters has been upset by reserved seats allocation. A post-election exercise cannot disturb the electoral mandate,” she says.

Hosain puts forth that the court’s verdict was handed down on July 12, yet it remains unimplemented, with over two months having passed since the ruling. She says that some had tied the implementation to the release of the court’s detailed reasoning, a position she describes as “wrong, unconstitutional, and [one that] set a dangerous precedent”.

“In any case, there can be no more excuses. The majority of the Full Bench have spoken, and they have given their reasons. All institutions must implement this decision immediately,” she concludes.

‘Debt of justice’

Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii describes the judgement as “a well-reasoned articulation” of why the short order was issued, granting all reserved seats to the PTI. According to Jaferii, the court found that the actions of the election commission and the returning officers who deprived the PTI of its status as a political party, were illegal. He highlights that because these were public functionaries, they are “owed a debt of justice” and must be put right as far as possible.

Jaferii notes that on the issue of the ECP and the returning officers’ failings, “11 judges, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan, were agreed in their short orders”. However, he notes that “eight judges felt that once this failure on the part of the state and ECP was determined, the debt of justice owed to the PTI trumped any technical handicaps that could have obstructed justice”.

The court, he observes, was “not impressed by the technical limitations of civil procedure being applied to electoral issues,” which it viewed as directly impacting the people’s fundamental rights to association and expression. He also asserts that the court referenced a previous decision from January 13, led by the Chief Justice, noting that if that ruling on PTI’s electoral symbol had been clearer regarding the party’s status, “none of these illegalities could have come about”.

‘High time the ECP mends its ways’

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan says that “it’s time for implementation”. He notes that the detailed judgement has “crossed all T’s and dotted all I’s,” addressing key issues such as the confusion stemming from the bat symbol verdict, the “mistakes within mistakes” of the ECP, and the matter of proportional representation in parliament.

He finds it “heartening to see the court prevent what it calls ‘democratic backsliding’,” and believes the decision is “constitutionally sound and legally convincing”. However, he offers one caveat, pointing to the court’s view that the terms “secured” and “won” are interchangeable — an interpretation he finds debatable.

Calling for action, Rahim states that “it’s high time the ECP mends its ways”, having previously “gleefully attempted to disenfranchise millions of voters”. He stresses that the ECP must now fulfil its legal obligations and carry out the court’s directives, which are binding upon it.

‘Judiciary must preserve the people’s will’

Lawyer Yasser Hamdani underscores the significance of the Supreme Court’s detailed judgement stating: “Regardless of the politics of the matter, the detailed verdict goes a long way in establishing some basic ideas about our constitutional democracy and the role of ECP within it.” He notes that the judgment “shows how fundamental the reserved seats are for the due representation of women and minorities in Pakistan’s political system”.

Hamdani also points out the SC’s characterisation of the ECP, saying it is “the guarantor of the electoral system’s fairness beyond being a mere administrator.”

He underscores the judgement’s reprimand of the ECP for contesting the matter as a primary contesting party which he believes “delineates the proper role of the commission both in the democratic process and before the court”.

Furthermore, he regards the judgment as significant for introducing the concept of electoral justice and insists that “the judiciary must preserve the people’s will”.

He states: “Regardless of what one feels about the dramatis personae of the case, it is an important judgement that underscores the importance of the electoral process to Pakistan’s constitutional democracy.”

He concludes by calling it an “extremely reasoned pronouncement” that will “hopefully go a long way in restoring the trust of the people in democracy”, but notes that “with the Election Act amendments of last month, this judgment has become dated,” suggesting that the controversy is far from over.

‘Need for judicial vigilance’

In a similar vein, lawyer Ayman Zafar, commenting on the 70-page Supreme Court verdict, highlights its emphasis on “judicial decorum and respect for majority decisions as non-negotiable principles.” She underscores the ruling’s reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in “safeguarding electoral justice and preventing executive overreach,” ensuring democratic institutions function in accordance with the Constitution, which she calls “the most sacred set of words in Pakistan.”

Zafar points to the court’s interpretation of Article 17(2), which extends beyond the formation of political parties to their “right to participate meaningfully in the electoral process.” She asserts that the ruling makes it clear “denying a party its election symbol cannot curtail its fundamental right to contest elections.”

On election disputes, Zafar notes the court’s view that such cases are “matters of public interest, where the entire constituency is affected.” This, she says, gives the judiciary broader latitude to ensure justice for voters and parties.

She warns of the potential for a constitutional crisis if the government fails to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling promptly. In her words, “Bydisregarding the rule of law and a continuous display of defiance towards judicial authority, the government not only erodes public trust but also endangers the very foundations of Pakistan’s legal system. To put it simply, the Constitution of Pakistan is at stake now.”

‘A progressive chapter’

Lawyer Zainab Shahid says that the judgment provides “a comprehensive position on the reserved seats matter and systematically addresses the role and rights of political parties in a democratic setup.” She explains that it reaffirms “the Supreme Court’s role as guardian of the people’s interest in free and fair elections” and stresses the “constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission to act as a ‘guarantor’ institution and not a partisan actor.”

According to Shahid, the ruling makes it clear that “the denial of a common party symbol due to flawed intraparty elections does not diminish or negate the right to exist and contest elections constitutionally guaranteed to every political party.” She adds that the judgment acknowledges “the confusion and prejudice caused by the January 13 judgment of the Supreme Court and the illegal actions of the returning officers and the ECP.”

Ultimately, Shahid calls the ruling “thoroughly reasoned and definitively a progressive chapter in Pakistan’s electoral jurisprudence.”

‘Principle of proportional representation’

“The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court today not only recognises the principle of proportional representation underpinning Article 51 of the Constitution,” says lawyer Mirza Moiz Baig, “but also addresses concerns about the judgment exceeding the parties’ respective pleadings.”

Baig states the Court’s position that “the Court’s endeavour in electoral disputes is different compared to the scope of ordinary civil cases.” He explains that the Court highlighted how proceedings in electoral matters “are inquisitorial in nature.”

He adds, “The Court has reinforced the view that given the importance of elections as the cornerstone of any democratic dispensation, the judiciary would not remain a silent spectator amidst allegations of rigging.”

Header image generated by AI.