The Supreme Court took a strong stance against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Saturday, criticizing its “attempts to create confusion” regarding the court’s July 12 verdict on reserved seats. The court made it clear that the commission’s request for clarification appeared to be an effort to “obstruct implementation” of the ruling, which had declared the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) eligible for reserved seats in the parliament.
In an eight-judge clarification, the court stated: “Reviewing the record presented before us, along with the short order, leaves no doubt that the commission’s request is nothing more than a pretext and an attempt to delay implementation.”
The controversy arose after the ECP notified 39 out of 80 Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) as PTI members but then sought further constitutional and legal advice from the Supreme Court regarding the remaining lawmakers in both national and provincial assemblies.
ECP Secretary Omar Hamid Khan submitted a petition to the Supreme Court’s registrar, seeking a detailed explanation of the court’s July 12 order. The order had declared PTI-backed independent candidates eligible for reserved seats.
Following the July 12 verdict, PTI lawmakers from the national and provincial assemblies submitted affidavits of allegiance to the ECP. However, the electoral commission questioned the legitimacy of Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, who had acted as the PTI’s representative, pointing out that he was not officially recognized as the party chairman and raising concerns about the validity of certain confirmations submitted by the PTI.
In a four-page clarification issued on Saturday, the Supreme Court dismissed the commission’s concerns, stating that the ECP itself had issued notices to the PTI through Barrister Gohar Ali Khan as its chairman, thereby acknowledging both the party and its office holders.
The Supreme Court pointed out that, even if one were to interpret the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) request sympathetically, the commission seems to have “forgotten the well-established de facto doctrine.” This rule protects the actions of an individual holding an office, even if there are legal questions about the validity of their position.
The court emphasized the inconsistency in the ECP’s approach, stating, “It would be completely illogical to assume that a political party, a legal entity, is fully operational without natural persons either de facto or de jure carrying out its functions.”
Additionally, the court criticized the ECP for now seeking guidance on the handling of certifications, asserting that the commission cannot “approve and disapprove” as it sees fit. The judgment highlighted that the ECP’s shifting stances reflect attempts to suit its immediate interests rather than adhering to legal consistency.
