On the 30th of July 2024, a PML-N lawmaker presented a bill in the National Assembly suggesting amends to the Elections Act 2017. This was granted presidential assent and passed in the Nation Assembly on the 6th of August. Sections 66 and 104 of the 2017 Act have been amended under this bill. These amendments start with a declaration that they are to take precedence over court orders including those of the Supreme court of Pakistan. Section 66 of the aforementioned Act tells how a contesting candidate shall file a declaration about his affiliation with a particular political party before he/she seeks allotment of the election symbol.

Section 104 elaborates in detail about the procedure of election towards these reserved seats for women and the minorities. The amendments put forward state that a political party should not be allotted seats reserved for women and non-Muslims if it failed to submit its list of candidates for these reserved seats within the prescribed time. They also state that a candidate should be considered independent if he/she did not file a declaration with the returning officer about their affiliation with a party before seeking a poll symbol.

What does the government want?

The sitting government being critical of the July 12th majority Judgment of the Supreme Court held a press Conference last Sunday. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar highlighted the dissenting opinions of two Supreme Court judges, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, which have cast doubts on the majority verdict.

Tarar criticized the Supreme Court’s delay in issuing a comprehensive written decision, questioning, why the remaining Judges have not presented their opinions yet.

He noted that the dissenting judges have suggested that implementing the decision might require suspending certain constitutional articles, a move he deemed problematic.

The minister elaborated on the implications of the dissenting notes, questioning the potential for “floor-crossing” if members of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) were to occupy PTI seats.

While referring to the constitutional provisions that outline qualifications for parliamentarians the information minister hinted upon this being a violation of the Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

He also expressed apprehension about the decision setting a precedent for future political manoeuvres, where members could freely switch party affiliations.

Mr Tarar clearly pointed out how the dissenting note has put a big question mark on the majority decision, emphasizing the need for clarity on the constitutional and legal issues raised by the judges.

Tarar warned that suspending constitutional articles to facilitate the decision could undermine Pakistan’s legal framework. Highlighting the potential legal and constitutional fallout Mr Tarar stated that the decision of the 12 of July hints towards unilateral relief towards one political party. He furthered his stance by emphasising upon how such an impression is damaging to both the Constitution and the rule of law in this country.

The information minister called for a thorough examination of the dissenting judges’ concerns, stressing that a failure to address these issues could lead to legalized floor-crossing and effectively nullify Articles 62 and 63. While concluding his Press Conference Attaullah Tarar said that the rule of law must be upheld, and any legal ambiguities must be resolved to maintain constitutional integrity.

Reaction to the Bill

Commentators called this bill as a move to frustrate the apex court. A response from the law minister, Mr Azam Nazeer Tarrar towards this bill has come forward. He said that it’ll be decided after consultation whether the state should file a review petition, or a resolution is passed by the house. SIC chief Mr Hamid Raza had claimed earlier that the top court attempted to re-write the Constitution and demanded a committee of the National Assembly over the SC’s final verdict of 12th July. The law minister had remarked that the parliament as the legislative body could change the verdict of the judiciary through legislation.