Written by Muhammad Ahmad On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a significant ruling on the issue of reserved seats for wom...
Written by Muhammad Ahmad
.jpg)
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a significant ruling on the issue of reserved seats for women and minorities. These are special seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies that are not filled through direct voting, but are instead allocated to political parties in proportion to the general seats they win in elections. This decision came after months of political and legal debate, and it has clarified an important aspect of the country’s electoral process, who qualifies for reserved seats in parliament, and on what basis.
At the core of this case was a situation that arose after the 2024 general elections. A number of independent candidates, mostly backed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), won their seats but had not contested under the PTI symbol (bat), since the Election Commission had denied the party its election symbol in the lead-up to the polls. After the elections, these independents needed a parliamentary platform to function as a collective group, since independents on their own cannot claim reserved seats or certain parliamentary privileges. For this reason, they joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a relatively inactive political party that had not itself contested the general elections.
Once these independents joined SIC, it was SIC that formally claimed entitlement to reserved seats based on its increased parliamentary strength. However, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rejected this claim, stating that SIC had neither contested the elections nor submitted any priority list of candidates for reserved seats, which is a constitutional requirement.
SIC challenged the decision in the Peshawar High Court (PHC), which upheld
the ECP’s stance. The PHC ruled that reserved seats could only be allocated to
parties that participated in the general elections and fulfilled the necessary
procedural requirements. However, this verdict was later overturned by the
Supreme Court in a majority judgment on July 12, 2024, which allowed SIC to be
allocated reserved seats. That decision sparked significant legal and political
debate.
Review and Reversal by the Supreme Court
Following the July 2024 ruling, several review petitions were filed, by the Pakistan Muslim League (N), the Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians, the ECP, and other stakeholders. These petitions urged the court to revisit its decision, arguing that awarding reserved seats to a party that had not contested the election violated constitutional principles and the spirit of proportional representation.
After extensive hearings, a 10-member larger bench of the Supreme Court reviewed the case and delivered its verdict on June 27, 2025. By a majority of 7–3, the Court allowed the review petitions, set aside its earlier July 2024 judgment, and restored the original ruling of the Peshawar High Court.
The majority held that only those political parties that contest elections and submit priority lists of reserved candidates before the polls are eligible for allocation of reserved seats. Therefore, SIC did not qualify under the Constitution and election laws.
Two judges, while agreeing to review the earlier judgment, directed the Election Commission to conduct a fresh factual inquiry into the affiliations and documents of the independent candidates. One judge partly upheld the previous judgment in relation to a portion of the reserved seats but disagreed with the allocation of the rest.
Key Legal and Constitutional Principles
The ruling affirms several key principles of Pakistan’s constitutional and electoral framework:
1. Link Between Reserved and General Seats
Reserved seats are meant to reflect the strength of political parties in general elections. The system ensures representation for women and minorities based on a party’s electoral performance. The Court reaffirmed that this linkage is essential and cannot be bypassed by post-election alliances.
2. Timely Submission of Priority Lists
Under electoral law, parties must submit a list of reserved seat nominees before elections. This ensures transparency and fairness. SIC had not submitted such a list, and the Court viewed this as a critical omission.
3. Role of the Election Commission
The decision strengthens the authority of the ECP, confirming its role in regulating the allocation of seats and ensuring compliance with constitutional procedures.
4. Limiting Post-Election Realignments
The judgment discourages parties or candidates from using post-election realignments to alter parliamentary composition, which could undermine the proportional representation mechanism.
Contrasting Reasoning
The reserved seats dispute is remarkable not only for its impact but also because the Supreme Court itself issued two contradictory judgments within a year.
In July 2024, a thirteen-member bench delivered what many considered a democratic correction. An eight-member majority reasoned that:
- Election disputes concern the will of the people, not just technicalities.
- To prevent injustice, the Court could exercise its power to do “complete justice.”
- PTI was treated as a party before the Court by ten judges.
- PTI-affiliated candidates, whether forced to run as independents or not, had won the largest number of seats in the National Assembly. Denying them proportional reserved seats would distort parliament and misrepresent voters.
- The ECP had misapplied the earlier “bat-symbol” judgment, stripping PTI of its status and prejudicing its candidates.
The majority concluded that awarding reserved seats to PTI-affiliated candidates was the only way to uphold the democratic mandate and prevent the will of the voters from being overridden.
In review, however, the Court reversed itself. By a 7–3 majority, a ten-member bench ruled that:
- Only parties that contested elections and submitted priority lists before polling day could receive reserved seats.
- SIC did neither, so it was ineligible.
- Post-election affiliations, no matter how numerous, could not create a new entitlement.
Procedural Irregularities in Review
Beyond the substance, the constitution of the review bench itself raised serious concerns. Under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, reviews are supposed to be argued, as far as practicable, before the same judges who delivered the original judgment, and typically by a bench of the same numeric strength.
But here, the review bench violated these norms:
- The original bench had thirteen judges; the review was decided by only ten.
- Two judges (Justices Malik and Abbasi) dismissed the reviews without hearing; another (Justice Panhwar) recused himself.
- Crucially, the authors of the original majority were not part of the review bench, while several judges from the original minority were included.
- The bench was led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, who himself had dissented in the July 2024 proceedings.
As a result, the final short order in review was issued not by the same majority that had upheld democratic representation, but by a reconstituted bench tilted against that outcome.
Implications
This judgment has immediate and serious consequences for Pakistan’s parliamentary balance. By denying reserved seats to SIC, the Supreme Court has indirectly strengthened the ruling coalition, often referred to as PDM (Pakistan Democratic Movement). Parties like the PML-N and PPP now stand to gain a greater share of reserved seats for women and minorities, which will further consolidate their numbers in the National and Provincial Assemblies.
This outcome not only shifts the numerical balance but also tilts legislative power heavily in favor of the ruling block, leaving the opposition weakened. For PTI-backed independents who joined SIC, this decision has effectively nullified their parliamentary strength beyond the seats they won directly.
Critics argue that this verdict undermines the very principle of democracy. The people voted overwhelmingly for candidates backed by PTI, yet their representation in parliament has now been curtailed through a technical interpretation of law. By restoring the Peshawar High Court decision, the Supreme Court has taken away the rightful claim of these voters to proportional representation. Reserved seats, which are meant to enhance inclusion, are now being redistributed in a way that benefits the ruling alliance and sidelines the opposition.
In practical terms, this ruling allows PML-N, PPP, and their allies to secure a two-thirds majority on paper, something they could not have achieved through direct votes alone. This weakens the idea of a level playing field and fuels perceptions that the system is being engineered to keep one political force at the margins.
Conclusion
The reserved seats judgment has done more than settle a legal question, it has shifted the political balance. By denying SIC and redistributing seats to the ruling parties, the Court has effectively inflated the government’s strength while cutting down opposition representation that voters had clearly supported.
Reserved seats were meant to widen inclusion, but this verdict narrows it, benefiting those already in power. In doing so, it weakens the principle of proportional representation and raises doubts about whether democratic will is truly respected in Pakistan’s parliamentary system.
Disclaimer:
This article was written by the author with the assistance of AI tools for language refinement only. All legal information, facts, and case references discussed in this piece have been obtained directly from the official website of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and publicly available court documents. The analysis, interpretation, and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
.jpg)
.jpg)
