Slow-moving tribunals

Nine months after the February 2024 elections, 83% of petitions remain undecided, deepening political instability.

The people's verdict on February 8, 2024 is still in the dock. Even after nine months, the petitions challenging the results in an overwhelming number of constituencies and the pleas for a recount in the context of Form 45-47 controversy are awaiting a decision in election tribunals. This slow pace of decision-making at the judicial level is a consequence of the blatant intervention of the executive, thanks to an ECP looking the other way. This deadlock has contributed immensely to the pestering political instability, and has the audacity to even defy the Supreme Court's dictates on award of seats reserved for women and minorities.

The Free and Fair Election Network, an independent think tank which specialises in electoral issues, has come out with some startling revelations in a recent report. It has identified and tracked 350 out of 377 petitions filed with 23 tribunals, and says that only 17% of the disputed litigation have been decided to this day. Likewise, seven of the 23 tribunals have yet to decide any petitions. The only province that went ahead to dispose of a majority of pleas is Balochistan, where three tribunals have decided on 30 out of 51 results disputes. Sindh and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa have trailed behind for reasons of political exigency, whereas Punjab has faced delays in their establishment owing to a crisscross between the Lahore High Court and the ECP.

To this day, the biggest province has resolved only 10 out of 155 petitions. Sindh disposed of a mere 12 out of 83 petitions and K-P 8 out of 42. In all, the fate of 51 provincial seats has been decided, whereas only nine National Assembly constituencies have come under the hammer. To add to this judicial jumble is the controversy surrounding the legality of the Senate's composition as the K-P assembly is yet to return legislators to the upper bicameral, and a plethora of reviews are pending with the apex court on alleged pre-and post-election maneuvering. A timely decision is constitutionally desired to ward off a 2013-like situation wherein the house completed its tenure before the tribunals could sit in judgment.