The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) confirmed that the recent change to the Elections Act of 2017 has no retrospective impact and cannot overturn its verdict on the awarding of reserved seats to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Friday.
The top court made it clear that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is obligated to implement the judgment without seeking further clarification.
The clarification came in response to the applications filed by both the ECP and PTI last month, requesting the court’s interpretation of its earlier ruling.
Despite the political turbulence surrounding the party, the Supreme Court ruled that the PTI was still qualified for seats designated for women and minorities.
However, after the government amended the Elections Act, the ECP sought clarity from the court on the distribution of these seats.
In its latest order, the court labeled the ECP’s request as “misconceived,” stressing that the commission must enforce the July 12 ruling.
The court had previously stated that 39 out of 80 members of the National Assembly affiliated with PTI still held their seats, while the remaining 41 members had the opportunity to reaffirm their party affiliations.
In its most recent judgment, the court branded the ECP’s plea as “misconceived,” emphasizing that the commission must uphold the July 12 ruling.
The court previously declared that 39 of the 80 National Assembly members connected with the PTI retained their seats, while the remaining 41 members were allowed to reaffirm their party affiliations.
Despite the court’s clarification, the ECP has not yet granted the reserved seats to PTI.
Conversely, PTI contended in its CMA that the court’s short order was based on constitutional provisions and that the amendments could not override the constitutional protections afforded in the verdict.
In its final clarification, the Supreme Court asserted that the amendments to the Elections Act do not affect the proportional representation rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and the ECP is bound to implement the court’s judgment in full.
