Authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the ruling also invalidated a prior decision from the Peshawar High Court (PHC), which had stated that reserved seats should be assigned to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party.
The verdict was reached by an 8-5 majority of a full bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Dissenting opinions came from Justices Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, who highlighted the importance of proportional representation.
The judgment emphasizes that the Commission, serving as a constitutional "electoral management body," is not just an administrative body but a crucial "guarantor institution" of democratic processes, holding a constitutional status similar to a fourth branch of government.
Consequently, the Commission must fully acknowledge its constitutional role and the vital function it serves in a democracy while undertaking its responsibility to conduct free and fair elections. As a cornerstone of democratic electoral processes, the Commission, in its capacity as a guarantor institution and impartial steward, is tasked with ensuring the transparency and fairness of elections, essential for maintaining public trust in the electoral system. This is vital for the legitimacy of elected representatives and the stability of the political system.
The Commission is required to uphold democratic principles and the integrity of electoral processes by ensuring that elections genuinely reflect the people's will, thereby safeguarding the democratic framework of the nation.
The detailed judgment by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali in the reserved seats case states that the circumstances of the current case indicate the Commission has failed to fulfill this role in the General Elections of 2024.
The majority judgment, supported by eight judges, noted their surprise at how the Commission participated as a primary contesting party against SIC and PTI during the appeal proceedings. They highlighted that the Commission’s primary function, as per Article 218(3) of the Constitution, is to organize and conduct the election and to make necessary arrangements to ensure the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly, and in accordance with the law, guarding against corrupt practices.
While this function of the Commission to "organize and conduct the election" is fundamentally executive rather than judicial or quasi-judicial, it also performs some quasi-judicial functions, as determined in prior cases. In the current matter, several political parties raised counterclaims concerning their right to the disputed reserved seats, which the Commission addressed in a quasi-judicial capacity. As established in previous rulings, a body performing quasi-judicial functions cannot be considered an aggrieved party if its decision is overturned or modified by a higher court.
Therefore, such a body lacks the locus standi to contest decisions from a higher forum or court and cannot act as a primary contesting party against an appeal from a rival party regarding its quasi-judicial decision. In this case, the Commission should have acted as a proper party to assist the court effectively rather than as a primary contesting entity.
When the Election Commission makes errors or significant misjudgments affecting the electoral process, judicial intervention is necessary to rectify these mistakes and ensure electoral justice. The judiciary must primarily protect the people's will, viewing election disputes through the lens of electoral integrity and the legitimacy of democracy to uphold public confidence in governance.
Electoral justice is essential for safeguarding political and electoral rights and is closely linked to electoral integrity. The role of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in overseeing electoral integrity is crucial for maintaining public trust in the democratic process, with the Court’s authority to do "complete justice" being a vital tool in its constitutional toolkit. This enables the Court to prevent democratic erosion and effectively protect democracy with a focus on the rights of the electorate. Failing to provide electoral justice and compromising electoral integrity would undermine the legitimacy of democracy itself.
Elections are a fundamental aspect of the democratic process, and the public has a significant stake in ensuring they are conducted freely and fairly, free from corrupt or illegal practices. Unlike ordinary civil cases, election disputes involve considerable public interest. An election dispute is not just between two contesting parties; it involves the constituency as a key stakeholder. These cases address not only the rights of candidates or political parties but also the rights of voters, constituencies, and the public.
Election cases aim to ensure that public offices are filled with qualified and duly elected candidates, preserving the integrity of elections so that no individual assumes a public office through egregious violations of election laws or corrupt practices. Thus, the proceedings in election cases possess distinct characteristics, as they serve the interests of the entire constituency, setting them apart from regular civil proceedings. This difference underscores the error in treating an election case as a typical civil case and limiting judicial inquiry to the parties' pleadings as in adversarial proceedings.
In a democratic context, freedom of expression extends beyond individual speech, encompassing the collective expression of a community’s or nation’s political will through their elected representatives. Essentially, freedom of expression and representativeness are deeply interconnected, each reinforcing the other. A genuinely representative government not only embodies the collective voice of its people but also ensures that this voice influences governance.
The rights to form political parties, contest elections, and vote are pivotal extensions of representativeness and freedom of expression, crucial for fostering a socially just environment. The fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 17(2) and 19 of the Constitution underscore the significance of political participation and freedom of expression, both vital to the functioning of a representative democracy. Article 17(2) guarantees the right to establish or join political parties, highlighting the crucial role of political participation in safeguarding democracy, while Article 19 upholds the freedom of expression, integral to the electorate’s ability to shape government by voicing their preferences through their votes.
Together, these Articles stress the importance of electoral integrity and political justice, ensuring every citizen’s voice and choice are acknowledged and represented in the political process. Based on this interpretation, we conclude that the sole consequence of declaring a political party ineligible to receive an election symbol under Section 215(5) of the Elections Act for failing to comply with Section 209 regarding intra-party elections is the non-allocation of an election symbol in future elections—no more, no less.
Moreover, such a declaration does not impact the political party's other constitutional and statutory rights. This was the result of the Commission’s order dated December 22, 2023 (upheld by this Court’s order dated January 13, 2024), which declared PTI ineligible for an election symbol under Section 215(5) of the Elections Act; PTI's other constitutional and statutory rights to operate as a political party remained unaffected. It is noted that if this Court had clarified this legal position in its January 13, 2024 order, or if the Commission had clarified it in its December 22, 2023 or January 13, 2024 orders, much of the confusion regarding PTI candidates' status or PTI’s right to reserved seats could have been avoided.
We are compelled to express our doubts about whether the Commission has the authority to reject the intra-party elections certificate submitted by a political party under Section 209 and whether it exercised its discretion under Section 215(5) justly, fairly, and reasonably in PTI’s case, especially since the election program had already been announced and citizens' fundamental right to vote for their chosen political party was at risk.
Similarly, we have reservations about how the issue of intra-party elections—a matter of a party's internal governance—can override citizens' fundamental rights to vote and political parties' rights to effectively participate in elections by obtaining a common symbol for their candidates, as guaranteed under Articles 17(2) and 19 of the Constitution. However, since these issues are currently sub judice in the review petition filed by PTI against this Court’s January 13, 2024 judgment, we refrain from examining and articulating a conclusive stance on them. Justice Muhammed Ali Mazhar has expressed a desire to avoid making remarks in this paragraph, given that the review petition against this Court’s judgment dated January 13, 2024, is pending, and clarifies that nothing in this paragraph is intended to impact the review petition's hearing.
