Supreme Court Reaffirms Clarification on Reserved Seats Case

The eight judges of the Supreme Court, who issued the majority decision on the case regarding reserved seats, have released a clarification for the second time.

The Supreme Court issued the clarification again at the request of the Election Commission, stating that the amendments to the Election Act cannot render the July 12 decision ineffective. The amendments to the Election Act cannot be used retroactively to invalidate the decision.

The Supreme Court stated that hearings on this matter were conducted in chambers in Karachi and Islamabad. The right to seek clarification was given to ensure there were no difficulties in implementing the brief order. Now that the detailed decision has been issued, no further clarification is required.

The majority judges noted that the detailed decision covers all legal and constitutional aspects. They had already issued clarifications before releasing the detailed reasons. The first clarification, according to the brief order, was also included in the detailed reasons. The option to seek clarification in the brief order was a temporary facilitation until the detailed reasons were provided.

The judges said that detailed reasons have already been issued, and all legal and constitutional issues raised by the parties have been comprehensively addressed and answered. Therefore, no further clarification is needed. The court’s decision must be enforced under Article 189 of the Constitution.

It should be remembered that on July 12, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the case of reserved seats.

The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Election Commission and Peshawar High Court, which had ordered the allocation of reserved seats for women and minorities, created based on PTI-backed members in the National and Provincial Assemblies, to other parliamentary parties instead of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

On September 14, the eight-member bench issued a clarification, stating that PTI was and remains a political party. There was no ambiguity in the July 12 decision, and the Election Commission should fulfill its responsibilities immediately. Failure or refusal to fulfill these responsibilities could have constitutional and legal consequences. The seat should be considered as belonging to the political party from which the certificate was issued.

The judges issuing the majority decision had clarified that there was no ambiguity in the July 12 decision.

The court had stated that the Supreme Court’s short order of July 12 was very clear, but the Election Commission unnecessarily complicated the order. Serious consequences would arise from non-implementation of the decision.