The Supreme Court’s eight judges have issued a detailed verdict on the reserved seats issue. Will this bring any change to Pakistan’s political landscape? I don’t think so. Although this verdict was highly anticipated, it doesn’t seem to offer anything that could bring about significant change. In my opinion, things remain where they were before the detailed verdict was released. It can be said that no one’s stance has changed, and there is no flexibility anywhere.
In Pakistan, the judicial system, after hearing political cases, has itself become a victim of their impact. Just as everyone knows the political opinions of politicians, the views of judges have also become well-known. People now openly discuss which judge leans towards which political party. This perception is not good for the judiciary, and it has caused irreparable damage to the institution’s reputation.
Differences in opinion among politicians are a hallmark of democracy, but tension or disagreements between judges are not a positive situation. While it makes sense when politicians clash, it’s not good for the judiciary to be perceived this way. Judges may disagree on constitutional and legal interpretations, but no one expected these differences to escalate further. The remarks made in the case of reserved seats are out there for all to see.
Even after the detailed verdict on reserved seats, there seems to be no hope of its implementation. Not only the ruling coalition parties, but even other constitutional bodies, including the Election Commission, do not seem inclined to implement it. As a result, no one is quite sure what will happen next. PTI supporters, whose stance has been favored by this decision, argue that the Constitution mandates that Supreme Court decisions must be followed. They warn that if Supreme Court rulings are not implemented, the country will descend into chaos. On the other hand, there is an argument that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Parliament is subordinate to the Supreme Court. Parliament is supreme in terms of legislation. Parliament can make laws, while the judiciary cannot create laws or amend the Constitution.
In this context, the question arises: if Parliament has already amended the law regarding reserved seats, what now? Can a law passed by Parliament override a court ruling? Legal experts cite several examples where Parliament has enacted laws to nullify court decisions. The most prominent example is the lifetime disqualification of Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen. Despite the existing disqualification, Parliament passed a law to end it. Many such examples are given where Parliament has neutralized court decisions through legislation. Therefore, some believe that now that Parliament has passed legislation regarding reserved seats, the court ruling has become ineffective, and the detailed verdict will not make any difference.
Political division in the country is not new. Where there is politics, there is division. One political faction even argues that the Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution with this decision. This is not a new argument either. In recent history, there have been several rulings that were said to have altered the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decisions are final, and if they are not in accordance with the Constitution and law, there is no way to correct them. Efforts are currently being made to find a solution to this issue, and there are suggestions that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court should be separated.
The crucial question is how far these eight Supreme Court judges will go to ensure the implementation of their verdict. The Speaker of the National Assembly has already written to the Election Commission opposing this decision, arguing that it should be decided according to the new legislation. The government is unlikely to be held in contempt of court for not implementing this decision. The real question is about the Election Commission: will it bow to pressure? Efforts are being made to put pressure on the Commission. Can the Chief Election Commissioner be punished for contempt of court? This is also a constitutional matter.
The removal process for the Chief Election Commissioner is the same as that for a Supreme Court judge. So, if a judge cannot be held in contempt, how can the Chief Election Commissioner? This too seems like a dead end. Is review the solution to this issue? Possibly, but maybe not. What I foresee is conflict. Further legislation from Parliament may also emerge, which could give the conflict a new shape. As a result, rather than resolving matters, this detailed verdict has further complicated them, and we are likely to see new developments. Another key question is whether new judges will be included in the full bench that will hear the review appeal. Their inclusion could change the dynamics.