The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench has issued a ruling that, while seeking to settle the legal debate over reserved seats, may in fact deepen Pakistan’s constitutional and political turmoil. By overturning an earlier judgment and declaring the Sunni Ittehad Council ineligible for reserved seats, the court has effectively handed an overwhelming parliamentary majority to the ruling coalition — a decision with troubling implications for democratic balance.
On paper, the verdict aims to bring legal finality. In practice, it appears to cement the fallout of the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) controversial decisions during the February general elections — particularly its handling of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the ‘bat symbol’ saga. The consequence is clear: an electoral distortion has now received the judiciary’s seal of approval.
It is worth remembering that in the earlier judgment on the same matter, even the dissenting justices acknowledged the ECP’s actions — forcing a major political party’s candidates to contest as independents — were unlawful. Those candidates could not benefit from reserved seat allocations due to their independent status, resulting in a systemic disenfranchisement of voters. The ECP’s refusal to execute corrective measures when ordered only compounded the injury.
Rather than scrutinising the ECP’s conduct or demanding accountability, the latest decision has instead granted retroactive legal cover. And it has done so through a bench whose constitution and timing have raised eyebrows, especially given the political beneficiaries of the outcome. In bypassing the broader democratic implications and zeroing in on procedural technicalities, the court may have done a disservice to the very Constitution it was meant to protect.
This ruling also carries serious consequences for parliamentary dynamics. With more than a two-thirds majority now in hand, the government can legislate virtually unchecked — including amending the Constitution — without meaningful opposition. The memory of the 26th Amendment’s controversial passage, amid coercion and political pressure, serves as a stark reminder of how unchecked power can distort democratic norms. Now, with institutional imbalance even more deeply entrenched, such episodes may become not the exception but the norm.
What’s more, the Constitutional Bench — itself a product of disputed judicial reform — has consistently backed positions that weaken civilian oversight and judicial independence. Its endorsements of military trials for civilians and executive control over judicial appointments have raised alarm. Now, its validation of a compromised electoral process adds to the growing perception that democratic guardrails are being systematically dismantled.
In this context, the Pakistani public has every reason to feel sidelined. With electoral mandates diluted, judicial remedies thwarted, and institutional checks eroded, citizens are left watching from the margins as their political future is rewritten — not by consensus or debate, but by decree.
Legal closure should not come at the cost of democratic legitimacy. Unfortunately, this verdict risks doing just that. It may have resolved a legal question, but it has raised far deeper concerns about fairness, accountability, and the trajectory of Pakistan’s constitutional order.
