By: Abid Ali Khan
Senior Journalist & Columnist
The concept of reserved seats in Pakistan’s parliamentary system was introduced under the Constitution of Pakistan to ensure representation for women and minorities. These seats have often remained at the center of legal and political debates among political parties. Recently, a case heard by the Supreme Court reignited this discussion, where the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) laid claim to reserved seats—a claim that was constitutionally dismissed by the apex court.
During the proceedings, the honorable judges remarked:
“A political party that is not represented in the Parliament cannot lay claim to reserved seats.”
This clear and unequivocal constitutional interpretation is rooted in Article 51(6)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan. According to this provision, reserved seats are allocated only to those political parties that have succeeded in securing general seats and are represented in the National Assembly, and that have submitted lists of candidates for reserved seats to the Election Commission prior to the elections.
The Sunni Ittehad Council, having not participated in the electoral process as an active parliamentary party before the elections, and having failed to submit a list for reserved seats, does not meet the constitutional criteria to claim these positions. The Court further clarified that although independent candidates may join a political party post-election, such affiliation does not entitle that party to reserved seats.
This raises an important constitutional question: Can a parliamentary party formed after the election become eligible for reserved seats? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is a firm no. Reserved seats are part of a pre-defined electoral process, adherence to which is mandatory from the outset.
One of the judges on the constitutional bench observed:
“The Sunni Ittehad Council could form a parliamentary party, but it is not entitled to reserved seats.”
This decision not only sets a precedent for future elections but also reflects the importance of transparency, procedural integrity, and constitutional discipline in the democratic process. Legal and political experts believe the ruling upholds the spirit of the Constitution and strengthens the continuity of parliamentary democracy. It also serves to curb the emerging trend of post-election maneuvering, where independent candidates align with a party in an attempt to secure unconstitutional access to reserved seats.
At a time when the nation grapples with political instability, uncertainty, and questions surrounding electoral transparency, such judicial clarity can serve as a pillar for a more robust, accountable, and trustworthy democratic system.
In conclusion, as a state, we must acknowledge that parliamentary democracy cannot be sustained by slogans or opportunistic alliances alone. It is the observance of constitutional boundaries, legal frameworks, and judicial interpretations that truly uphold the sanctity and strength of our democratic institutions.
