On a significant ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on July 12, the judicial body highlighted the profound consequences of election authorities unlawfully denying the recognition of a major political party. The verdict, with an 8-5 majority, declared that such actions not only impede the rights of the political candidates but also infringe upon the electorate’s right to choose their representation freely.
This ruling, primarily focused on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), came as a significant setback to the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The Court emphasized that undermining the recognition of a major political entity, such as PTI, compromises democratic principles, causing irreparable harm to the rights of both the candidates and the voters.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Verdict
The Supreme Court, through its detailed 70-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, laid out the key issues surrounding the role of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and returning officers (ROs) during the recent elections. The following are the most critical aspects of the ruling:
- Election authorities denying major political party recognition infringes upon electorate’s rights.
- Unlawful acts of the ECP and ROs led to confusion and prejudice against PTI, harming both the party and the electorate.
- ECP failed to act as a ‘guarantor institution’ of democratic processes, casting doubt on the electoral system’s integrity.
- Dissenting notes from judges lacked the courtesy and restraint typically required in such judgments.
This article dives deep into the critical elements of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the lasting implications for electoral integrity, the role of the ECP, and how political parties and their electorate are affected by unlawful actions.
The ECP’s Failure to Perform as a Guarantor of Democratic Processes
The Election Commission of Pakistan holds a fundamental role in ensuring free and fair elections in the country. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes that the ECP’s failure to uphold its duty significantly affected the legitimacy of the electoral process. As outlined in the ruling, the ECP, in its role as a guarantor institution, is responsible for maintaining public trust by ensuring elections are conducted transparently and fairly.
However, the Court noted several instances where the ECP failed to perform this crucial role. According to the judgment, the ECP’s “unlawful acts and omissions” not only caused prejudice to PTI but also undermined the electorate’s faith in the electoral process. The commission wrongly classified PTI’s candidates as independents, thus affecting the party’s ability to contest under its rightful symbol. This error had cascading effects on public trust in the election results and the democratic fabric of the nation.
Unlawful Acts of the Returning Officers and ECP: Impact on PTI and Electorate
In the majority judgment, the Court observed that the returning officers (ROs) and the ECP were involved in several unlawful actions that prejudiced PTI and its candidates. For instance, PTI-nominated candidates were inaccurately listed as independent candidates in Form 33. This administrative oversight not only compromised the political party’s participation but also left the electorate misinformed about who they were voting for, thus infringing on the right to a fair election.
The judgment specifically noted that after the intra-party elections, Gohar Ali Khan took de facto control over PTI’s affairs and conducted activities on behalf of the party. The Supreme Court asserted that the actions performed by PTI under Gohar Ali Khan’s leadership before the January 13 ruling, which revoked PTI’s electoral symbol, were “fully valid and effective.”
These unlawful acts, compounded by the ECP’s actions, led to significant confusion during the elections and tainted the transparency of the entire process, leaving the electorate in a position of uncertainty. This ruling brings into sharp focus the critical role that election authorities must play in ensuring democratic participation is unhindered and that political parties can freely and fairly contest elections.
Dissenting Notes: A Departure from Judicial Decorum
The Supreme Court’s verdict also touched upon the tone and language used in dissenting judgments written by Justices Aminuddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan. In their dissent, these judges made strong remarks against the July 12 order, questioning the constitutional basis of the majority’s decision. They warned that if the 39 plus 41 returned candidates took actions not in alignment with constitutional provisions, they could risk losing their seats.
While dissenting opinions are a natural and healthy part of the judicial process, the majority of the Court criticized the language used in these dissenting opinions as falling short of the courtesy and restraint expected of judges in the Supreme Court. The remarks also posed a challenge to the legitimacy of the majority ruling, undermining the finality of the Court’s decisions and eroding trust in the judiciary.
The Broader Implications for Democratic Backsliding
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the ECP’s role in the matter and how its actions threatened to erode the democratic process. The Court stressed the significance of its own powers to enforce “complete justice” as a safeguard against democratic backsliding. The court’s intervention in such cases is crucial to ensuring that democratic institutions remain accountable and operate transparently.
The judiciary’s role in securing electoral integrity is essential to maintaining public trust in the system. By ruling that the ECP and ROs had failed in their duties, the Supreme Court underscored the critical nature of ensuring that elections are conducted in a manner that truly reflects the will of the people. Without this assurance, the electoral process loses legitimacy, and the rights of both the candidates and the electorate are compromised.
Conclusion: Upholding the Integrity of Elections and Democracy
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case serves as a stark reminder of the essential nature of free and fair elections. Election authorities, particularly the ECP, are entrusted with upholding the principles of democracy by ensuring that political parties and candidates are treated fairly and without prejudice. The unlawful actions taken by the ECP and ROs in this case not only harmed PTI but also eroded the electorate’s confidence in the democratic process.
As highlighted in the verdict, the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding democratic integrity, and the power of the Court to do “complete justice” is a critical tool in preventing democratic backsliding. Going forward, the ECP and other election authorities must act with impartiality and in strict adherence to the Constitution to ensure the will of the people is accurately reflected in the results of free and fair elections.