Triumph of democracy

The reserved seats decision has changed the political mosaic – for good. The majority verdict of 8-5 by the full court, declaring that the PTI is entitled to the National Assembly seats reserved for women and minorities, will surely have spillover effects in terms of arithmetic on the ruling dispensation. In a major victory to the beleaguered party and its incarcerated leader, the Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission had acted “unconstitutionally” by denying it its due share of seats, as per proportional representation, and went on to state that PTI “was, and is, a political party” and “its candidates cannot be declared as Independent” nor the representatives of any other party.

The decree also said that withdrawal of election symbols cannot disqualify a political party from elections. These observations mean a lot and have come to clear the air of disgust and lacunas that had set in not only over the February 8 electoral process and its stage-managed aftermath, but also on many of the interpretations of the top court such as denial of electoral symbol to the PTI.

The judgment has put two constitutional organs in the spotlight: the Peshawar High Court and the ECP. While their respective wisdom has been declared null and void by a majority of honourable judges, it necessitates a mechanism to address the judicial flaws that come into play either under duress or extraordinary circumstances.

The judges came down hard on the ECP by categorically indicting it for misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s three-member bench decision of taking away the electoral symbol of ‘cricket bat’, and obliterating the PTI of its status as a political party. That broad consensus on the bench was the decisive factor in turning the tables in PTI’s favour, which saw castigation of the constitutional body for its ultra vires interpretation. That was a moment of Waterloo for the Attorney General and the ECP, who must stand retribution for hoodwinking the spirit of the Constitution.

The point of consolation, however, is that the judges of the apex court held their heads high and did not succumb to the erstwhile ‘law of necessity’, as was widely assumed during the extensive, nail-biting proceedings. This judgment has come as a shot in the arm for judicial activism that had been under stress for quite some time and also restored the confidence of civil society and political process in the rule of law and constitution.

The 13-member bench was in the thick and thin of legal interpretations, and for the first time came across instances when the remarks of judiciary and constitutional bodies were in the dock too. It, however, goes to the resilience of the PTI, and the Sunni Ittehad Council, that they dug their heels in adversity, and triumphed. It was, of course, not an easy decision as the proceedings made it clear that judges were crisscrossed as they applied their piece of mind.

With PTI supposed to submit its reserved candidates list within 15 days, the numerical restructuring on the floor of the house calls for utmost recourse to law and conventions. While the puzzle of future governance will have to await tribunals’ decisions, an inevitable change is on the cards. The decision has simply redeemed the judiciary’s image as a saviour in upholding law and democracy.