The Supreme Court of Pakistan has released a detailed judgment in the case involving the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), titled “Supreme Court’s PTI Verdict Detailed.” This landmark decision, announced by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, has far-reaching implications for the country’s political landscape. Justice Shah, who is set to succeed Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in October, delivered the majority verdict, which was supported by seven other judges. This ruling not only confirmed PTI as a parliamentary party but also raised important concerns about the conduct of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) during the 2024 general elections.
Majority Verdict: 8-5 Split Decision
The case was heard by a 13-member bench, which included a wide range of senior justices. Out of the 13 judges, eight ruled in favour of PTI, including Justices Munib Akhtar, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A. Malik, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, and Irfan Saadat Khan. The committee determined that, from a list of 80 Members of the National Assembly (MNAs), 39 belonged to PTI, while 41 others could resubmit their party affiliation certificates. Despite the 8-5 split, the court agreed that PTI should retain its status as a parliamentary party.
The minority judgment, written by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, along with separate opinions by Justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, opposed this decision. However, their views did not impact the overall ruling, which ultimately favoured PTI’s parliamentary status.
Supreme Court’s PTI Verdict Detailed: Criticism of ECP: Unlawful Acts and Omissions
In its majority verdict, the Supreme Court delivered a strong critique of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for its handling of PTI’s intra-party elections and the denial of the party’s electoral symbol. The court noted that several “unlawful acts and omissions” by the ECP and its returning officers (ROs) had caused significant prejudice against PTI, its candidates, and the electorate that voted for them. Specifically, the authorities wrongfully listed PTI’s candidates as independent candidates in the contesting candidates’ list (Form 33), which affected both their candidacies and the voters’ choice.
The judgment further observed that after the intra-party elections, Gohar Ali Khan had assumed de facto charge of PTI’s functions as its chairman. Therefore, he performed acts on behalf of PTI before January 13, 2024, when the court restored the ECP’s decision that denied PTI its electoral symbol, deeming it fully valid and effective.
Upholding Electoral Integrity: Free and Fair Elections as a Pillar of Democracy
The Supreme Court stressed the vital role of free and fair elections in a functioning democracy. According to the court, when election authorities, like the ECP, unlawfully deny recognition to a major political party and treat its candidates as independents, they not only compromise the candidates’ rights but also infringe upon the electorate’s right to make an informed choice. The court’s role in ensuring electoral integrity, therefore, becomes essential to upholding public trust in the democratic process.
The ruling also emphasized that the judiciary’s power to ensure “complete justice” is a crucial tool in safeguarding democracy from erosion. Without judicial intervention, democratic backsliding could occur, which would undermine the people’s will and weaken institutional legitimacy.
Questioning the ECP’s Discretionary Powers
In addition to criticizing the ECP’s handling of PTI’s intra-party elections, the Supreme Court raised questions about the Commission’s discretionary powers under Sections 209 and 215(5) of the Election Act. The judges expressed doubts as to whether the ECP had acted justly, fairly, and reasonably when it rejected PTI’s certificate of intra-party elections. The judgment noted that the fundamental right of citizens to vote for the political party of their choice was at stake. The court found it troubling that matters of internal party governance, such as intra-party elections, were used to undermine citizens’ voting rights.
The court chose not to delve deeper into this issue, as PTI had already filed a review petition regarding the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment of January 13, 2024. However, the judges expressed clear concerns about the ECP’s handling of the situation.
ECP’s Role as a ‘Guarantor Institution’ of Democracy
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment was its evaluation of the ECP’s constitutional role. The Supreme Court asserted that the ECP, as the body responsible for organizing and conducting elections, holds a critical position as a “guarantor institution” of democratic processes. The ECP’s failure to fulfil this role during the 2024 general elections was a cause of concern for the court.
The judgment highlighted that the ECP is not merely an administrative entity but occupies a constitutional position akin to a “fourth branch of government.” This gives it the responsibility to ensure transparency, fairness, and legitimacy in the electoral process. The court criticized the ECP for acting as a primary contesting party against PTI and the Special Investigation Committee (SIC), rather than serving as an impartial steward of the electoral process.
The court noted that while the ECP performs some quasi-judicial functions, its primary role is executive — to organize and conduct elections fairly and by the law. The ECP’s failure to maintain this role and its approach in contesting the case like a rival party was seen as a breach of its constitutional duties.
Dissenting Opinions and Judicial Courtesy
The ruling concluded with a note of disappointment regarding the dissenting opinions of Justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan. The majority expressed concern over the tone used in their dissenting judgment of August 3, 2024. The dissenting judges had suggested that the majority’s ruling could lead to a constitutional violation and warned that the 80 returned candidates might lose their seats if they acted based on the majority decision.
The majority viewed this as a breach of judicial decorum, stating that while it is acceptable to disagree on legal matters, the language used by the dissenting justices fell short of the courtesy and restraint expected of Supreme Court judges. The majority opinion stressed that dissenting views should not undermine the authority or integrity of the highest court in the land.
Conclusion: A Critical Evaluation of Pakistan’s Electoral Processes
The “Supreme Court’s PTI Verdict Detailed” serves as a critical evaluation of the Election Commission of Pakistan’s role in ensuring fair and transparent elections. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding democratic principles and protecting the rights of both political parties and the electorate. It also reaffirms the judiciary’s role in preserving democratic integrity and safeguarding against the erosion of public trust in the electoral system.
