The debate surrounding the legitimacy and impact of this amendment is multifaceted. One school of thought posits that parliament is supreme in legislative matters, a domain exclusive to it and beyond the purview of any other institution. This perspective holds that the Supreme Court’s verdict, which affirmed the PTI’s status and allotted reserved seats accordingly, has created confusion since the PTI was not a party to the original case. They argue that legislative action to clarify this confusion is both necessary and appropriate.

Conversely, another legal faction contends that the Supreme Court’s decision was an attempt to rectify the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) erroneous interpretation of the bat symbol verdict, compounded by the intimidation faced by the PTI pre-election. Given these extraordinary circumstances, the SC’s intervention was aimed at ensuring fairness and justice. Proponents of this view argue that the new amendments will not undermine the SC’s verdict and that the detailed judgment, once released, will dispel any ambiguities.

A third viewpoint suggests that by passing the bill before the detailed judgment of July 12 is released and before the review petitions challenging the SC verdict are heard, the government aims to bypass the ruling seamlessly. Notably, the ECP has also filed a review petition against the SC decision on reserved seats, arguing that it unfairly benefits the PTI and discriminates against other political parties. The ECP questions how the SC could issue a verdict without allowing the other stakeholders to present their case, highlighting a perceived imbalance in the decision-making process.

In an interesting turn, reports suggest that the government plans to introduce a constitutional amendment in parliament soon. However, it currently lacks the necessary numbers in the Senate to pass this amendment, raising questions about how this legislative hurdle will be overcome. The pressing concern remains: will the failure to implement the SC verdict and the introduction of a constitutional amendment exacerbate institutional conflicts in an already fragile nation?

The potential for a constitutional crisis looms large if all parties involved do not exercise restraint. The ongoing tug-of-war between legislative and judicial powers threatens to destabilise the country further. The key question is whether the PTI’s challenge in the Supreme Court will succeed in overturning the amendments or whether the government will manage to enforce its legislative changes.

For democracy to function effectively, a balance must be maintained between the branches of government. The current situation demands a careful and considered approach to avoid exacerbating existing tensions. It is essential for the judiciary and the legislature to respect each other’s domains while ensuring that their actions are in the best interest of the country and its democratic principles.

As anticipated, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Election Act 2017. Passed by both the National Assembly and the Senate, these amendments have sparked significant controversy. The petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the constitution by PTI Chairman Gohar Khan, seeks to declare the Elections (Second Amendment) Bill 2024 “null and void”. This bill, tabled by PML-N lawmaker Bilal Azhar Kiyani, aims to prevent PTI-backed Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) from rejoining their party and deprive the PTI of reserved seats. Critics argue that this law is a direct attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s July 12 ruling on the reserved seats issue, which allocated these seats to the PTI based on the number of seats the party won. If upheld, this ruling would make the PTI the single largest party in the National Assembly.

***