Knowing the hardships that Muslims had to suffer in the face of Congress’ desire to form a majoritarian rule under the atrocity of which Muslims would be trampled, the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his first address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan, while delineating his vision for Pakistan, emphasised that Pakistan would be home to all minorities where they could live according to their own accord. Unfortunately, because of the way the state’s narrative was hijacked by the right wing by interpreting the history of Pakistan movement only in terms of Hindus and Muslims, and later on trying to build the whole identity of being ‘Pakistani’ constitutionally Muslim-centric, Pakistan has almost forgotten all the pledges that its founder had made to the world at large and the minorities within in particular. This can be witnessed from the plethora of challenges that minorities have been pitted against, and have been constantly battling with in the face of society’s apathy towards them. What is more lamentable is the fact that apart from common citizens who out of ignorance consider them ‘outcasts’, the little space that minorities constitutionally occupy is being snatched from them by constitutional bodies through sheer disregard for minorities’ rights, and poor understanding of their mandate in the constitution. The case in point is the 18th amendment in which an amendment has been made with respect to political fortune of minorities, especially non-Muslims, through article 51(6)(e). According to the provision of the amendment, seats reserved for non-Muslims/minorities in parliament will be filled by political parties in proportion to the number of seats won by each party in general elections. In other words, minority members can neither participate in elections for parliament nor can offer themselves for such elections; in fact, there is no election for them at all to choose their representatives. The passage of the amendment by parliament in a democratic dispensation like ours where parliamentarians are not absolutely sovereign — delegation of sovereignty to the absolute sovereign: constitution — shows that constitutional rights of minorities have been compromised by representatives of the majority through poor understanding of their role envisaged by the constitution. In this nonchalant approach towards minorities’ political fortune by parliament, the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan — being the custodian of the constitution, thereby saviour of popular will — instead of upholding the constitution, stood by the parliament in the proposed provision of the amendment. The SC dismissed the petition against the provision of the amendment and stated: “Through a general election, the minority may not find due representation in parliament; therefore, seats were reserved for them to be filled through proportional representation on the party basis, which was not undemocratic and was in vogue in several countries with a parliamentary form of government.” First, let’s delineate how the amendment in itself is a breach on the part of parliament of its constitutional role. According to the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, parliamentarians have delegated sovereignty; they have to exercise their powers while keeping regard for directives set forth in the constitutional preamble in which among many else a pledge has been taken with respect to upholding democracy in Pakistan, and every step shall be taken to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities. The passage of the provision of the amendment in question shows that parliament, instead of being fiduciary for all in Pakistan who have reposed their trust in parliament, has acted on behalf of the majority while turning a deaf ear to minorities’ concerns. As per the provision of the amendment, minorities’ representation in parliament through selection instead of election has deprived them to represent themselves with their legitimate and popular representatives. This is an act that goes against the essence of democracy and puts a question mark over the amendment as it strikes against the essence of the constitution. Now some might argue that the parliament has absolute sovereignty with respect to passage of the amendment, as according to article 239 (5) and (6) of the constitution “no amendment of the Constitution can be called in question in any court of Pakistan on any ground whatsoever.” And that “there is no limitation whatsoever on the power of Parliament to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.” To all those, the judgment of Munir Bhatti v The Federation PLD 2011 SC 407 is worth reading. It says that article 239 (5) and (6) of the constitution should not be read as stand-alone provisions; rather, they need to be reconciled with other provisions of the constitution which, among other things, guarantee due process, fundamental rights, observance of principles of democracy and safeguarding the legitimate interests of minorities that had been expressed by people in the constitution with a degree of clarity. Thus, the provision of the amendment in question cannot be passed unquestioned under the umbrella of article 239 (5) and (6), as deciding the political representation of minorities significantly deals with safeguarding the legitimate interests of minorities, which unfortunately cannot be catered through selective representation of minorities. In the democratic polity of ours where parliamentary sovereignty does not apply absolutely, and where the constitution is supreme, the only custodian of the constitution is the judiciary, which ensures that the constitution is upheld by those at the helm. Thus, the judiciary is the saviour of popular will embodied in the constitution. Unfortunately, when the provision of the amendment in question was brought before the SC under Article 184 (3), instead of pressing the government to make sure that minorities could take part in general elections through their chosen representatives, it expediently dismissed the petition by saying that proportional representation of minorities on party basis through reserved seats as per the amendment was suitable, and was not undemocratic. as through the general elections, minorities might not find due representation in parliament. Through dismissing the petition, the SC stood by a provision of the amendment that stood in contrast with the essence of the constitution; the SC, thus, abdicated from its constitutional role. Minorities constitute a significant chunk of society in Pakistan. They have a democratic right to choose their representatives through elections instead of being represented by appointees of political parties through reserved seats, who according to a Hindu friend of mine, belong to the elite class, and are not genuine representatives of their concerns. The writer can be reached at uinam39@gmail.com