There are two prevalent perspectives to analyze the conundrum of reserved seats: the government coalition’s perspective and that of a PTI supporter. However, it is more reliable to approach the topic as a citizen and a student of law.
From this vantage point it is clear that there is more to the issue than just right and wrong, which can be found on opposing sides of the argument. Instead, there are complex aspects on both sides, and the right cannot be reduced to a single position. Several factors must be taken into consideration.
For instance, in the case of a revision petition, a decision has been made to implement it within 15 days. However, if the request for revision is not heard within this timeframe, it becomes ineffective. This raises the question of whether one of the parties should forfeit their right to be heard, just on technical grounds?
Although a short order has been issued, a detailed decision has not yet been announced. It has been stated that the request for review cannot be heard until a detailed decision is made. This brings up the issue of whether it is the fault of one of the parties for the delay in reaching a detailed decision, which affects their right to be heard.
Furthermore, if the request for review cannot be heard until a detailed decision is made, should the implementation of the decision be delayed too, until the detailed verdict is announced?
This is a catastrophic situation, with speculations of a possible constitutional breakdown. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to issue a detailed judgment rather than a short order?
In the previous year, a brief ruling was issued in the presidential reference concerning the Riko Diq case. Following this, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Omar Ata Bandial retired. However, the comprehensive and detailed judgment for this case is still pending.
In 2007, a seven-member bench led by former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry directed the government to create rules under the Qisaas e Diyyat law. The bench also ordered the establishment of a debt fund to provide low-interest loans to help poor prisoners pay their diyat.
Following the decision, there were numerous questions raised concerning its validity according to Sharia and the constitution. Upon contemplation of filing a review petition, the government discovered that the detailed judgment was still pending, necessitating a period of waiting. This waiting period persisted.
The government found it necessary to initially introduce ordinances, subsequently enact legislation, formulate regulations, and establish a fund to provide low-interest loans. However, the detailed decision was still pending when Iftikhar Chaudhry was removed from office. Later on, he was reinstated and then retired, yet the detailed judgment is still awaited.
The Parliament should take into account the court holidays as well. This practice originates from the colonial rule when the British replaced Muslim judges with judges from Britain. These judges struggled with the rainy weather conditions of the subcontinent and suggested summer vacations. During the colonial period, the delivery of justice was not a priority and was often used to suppress the subjects. The current system is different as the judges are local and accustomed to the local weather. Additionally, modern amenities such as air conditioning have made working in courts more comfortable.
The Chief Justice believes that these holidays are no longer considered an obligation that cannot be reduced or eliminated, especially during times of crisis. Colonial holidays are particularly important during national crises. In this context, the right to appeal is guaranteed by the constitution, and according to the law, when an appeal is filed, the case must be heard within 14 days. Normally, the counting of days could start after the holidays, but given the seriousness of the matter, this is not acceptable. The political stability of Pakistan is at stake. The decision of the Supreme Court is final and must be carried out, but it needs to be made first.
