In the first round of the proposed constitutional amendments package, the government and its allied parties failed to secure approval from the National Assembly and the Senate. Undoubtedly, the approval of these proposed constitutional amendments was a significant priority for the government, which made every effort to achieve it. This urgency was evident in the government camps, highlighting various contradictions.
The failure to pass these proposed constitutional amendments is being viewed as a setback for the government, which now faces a degree of disappointment. The government claims that these amendments would help establish the supremacy of the political and democratic system and ensure judicial reforms. However, opponents argue that instead of establishing a balance between the judiciary and the executive, these amendments would further empower the executive in judicial matters, indicating a policy of executive control over the judicial system.
A confrontational environment already exists between parts of the judiciary and the government, with the government viewing certain judicial decisions with suspicion. It believes that efforts to weaken the political government, increase pressure, and deliver favorable judgments to political opponents have led to issues.
At the government level, the approval of the Practice and Procedure Ordinance, the Speaker’s communications with the Election Commission, the decision not to change reserved seats, and the amendments to the Election Act have been implemented. Following these developments, the enforcement of specific Supreme Court decisions regarding reserved seats appears impossible. The Election Commission’s request for legal opinions after the Speaker’s letter and the Chief Justice’s call for clarification from the registrar concerning reserved seats indicate that tensions and confrontations are certainly posing risks to the system.
The government still considers the proposed constitutional amendments to be a vital part of its political agenda. Therefore, the game for approval of these amendments is not over yet, with a new effort expected in early October, or at the very latest, in the second week. Before this, the government aims to make some adjustments to the proposed amendments package and gain the consent of allies, particularly Maulana Fazlur Rehman, as a significant priority. After Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s return from the U.S., the government will strive to bring this matter to a logical conclusion.
On one hand, there is the challenge of winning over Maulana Fazlur Rehman, and on the other, the Pakistan Peoples Party also wishes to preserve its democratic image. This makes the government’s task more difficult and the pathways less clear. A glimpse of this can be seen in the Punjab Governor’s statement that whoever becomes Chief Justice should be allowed to. According to Sardar Saleem Haider, it is not the Prime Minister’s job to choose the Chief Justice from among four or five judges. The Governor’s statement did not come in a political vacuum; it is likely that he was instructed by the party to convey this message. The Supreme Court Bar and other councils have also expressed reservations about the Practice and Procedure Ordinance.
Under this new strategy, Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif is consulting with Ishaq Dar and National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, aiming to secure Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s support. Meetings between Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto are also taking place, intending to project that the Peoples Party will introduce a new amendment bill with government and opposition support to reach at least a consensus on the establishment of a constitutional court. It remains to be seen where Maulana Fazlur Rehman will place his political weight in this new governmental strategy.
Thus, while the government appears silent, it has not decided to withdraw from this game; instead, it has opted to enter the field with a new strategy. The government has reservations about current judicial decisions, particularly objecting to the judicial ruling on reserved seats, which it believes has undermined its two-thirds majority process, rendering critical legislation or amendments controversial—crucial for the government’s political survival.
It is evident that neither the government nor anyone else is genuinely concerned about judicial reforms; rather, they want to use these constitutional matters to fulfill their political agenda. This can be seen in the government’s brisk activities at every level. While bringing in constitutional amendments or judicial reforms is the government’s right, it would be more prudent to undertake these steps while involving all stakeholders.
The Peoples Party justifies its position with the Charter of Democracy, which includes a clause on the establishment of a constitutional court. However, from 2006 until now, the Peoples Party has never raised its voice on this critical issue, nor has it discussed it even during its joint government with the Muslim League-N. However, the political timing of discussing the establishment of a constitutional court is now crucial, and according to the Peoples Party, it has become part of their agenda. Meanwhile, Maulana Fazlur Rehman supports this judicial reform but is against any amendment that would increase the retirement age of judges.
On the other hand, the PTI has once again approached the Supreme Court regarding the Speaker’s decisions on reserved seats and has challenged the Practice and Procedure Ordinance in court. The Chief Justice is currently adopting a notably aggressive policy in these circumstances. This entire scenario reflects that the ongoing power struggle in Islamabad, along with the political turmoil or tensions present there, is unnecessarily complicating and politicizing the system, exacerbating political, legal, economic, and security conditions rather than improving them.