In a verdict hailed by Imran Khan’s PTI and criticised by the PML-N-led ruling coalition, the Supreme Courtroom (SC) declared on Tuesday the Election Fee of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Meeting until Oct 8 “unconstitutional” and glued Might 14 because the date for elections within the province.
The decision got here after a weeks-long tussle between the PTI and the federal government over the matter and a number of other judicial recusals. The choice additionally adopted a deepening rift between the judiciary and the federal government, which has expressed a lack of trust within the chief justice of Pakistan-led three-member bench that introduced the decision.
So the place will we go from right here? Most authorized specialists and analysts are of the view that whereas in the present day’s verdict was in step with the Structure, it’s going to doubtless set off one other disaster. Right here’s what they needed to say.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii told Dawn.com that by declaring the ECP decision to delay polls till October illegal, the SC has “solved only the lesser of the crises it was involved in”.
He said that the “greater crisis is of the court’s own making, and the CJP’s failure to build consensus amongst his colleagues leaves it unresolved.
“It is this failure to form a full court and exhibit a united front that has allowed for the government to issue the threats it has subtly conveyed over the weekend. These threats will only get louder now that the expected decision has been announced.”
He added on Twitter, “Constitutional crisis here we come, right back where we started from.”
Pakistan Initiative at Atlantic Council’s South Asia Centre Director Uzair Younus had a similar opinion.
He pointed out in a tweet that the apex court had stood by the Constitution in its two previous orders on April 22 and 23, adding, “But anyone who thought it was the end of things back then was mistaken”.
Younus said the case was the same today. “The end is just the beginning.
And the beginning is the end…”
When Dawn News asked lawyer Mirza Moiz Baig for his opinion on the matter, he said he believed that the top court’s enunciation in the verdict of the constitutional principle that elections were to be held within 90 days after the dissolution of an assembly was “uncontroversial and there was, perhaps, never any doubt in this respect”.
But, he continued, “I believe this judgement, perhaps, raises a number of questions about the contours of the SC’s original jurisdiction”. He added that the exclusion of those judges from the adjudication of this case whose view point was different than the chief justice also raised several questions.
Moreover, he said, “the manner in which the court has heard and then decided this case perhaps raises a number of questions not only about the integrity of the electoral process but also about the integrity of the court itself.”
He pointed out that if the government opted to flout the apex court’s order — which would not be completely unlawful — it would “escalate and aggravate the tensions between the executive and the judciary … and we are going to be in a situation where there is going to be more political uncertainty and where there is going to be an extreme conflict between the executive and the judiciary”.
Nevertheless, Baig foresaw the government mounting “political and legal pressure” on the SC in the coming days and an “escalation in the government’s narrative about the SC”.
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik shared similar views, albeit more succinctly.
Doing the right thing the wrong way did not resolve issues, it only created new ones, he said, adding, “And that is precisely what this decision has done.”
Lawyer Saalar Khan also commented on the “importance of the procedure”, but stressed that the SC’s decision was the “correct ultimate outcome”.
“One can legitimately debate the procedure. But whether this was a full court of the SC or a high court, this would still have been the correct ultimate outcome. To condone the alternative is to allow the clear text of the Constitution to yield to the 2023 remix of Necessity,” he said on Twitter.
He added: “That said, the importance of procedure cannot be understated – and for the same reason. The ends justifying the means is exactly that: Necessity by another name. One can recognise this while remaining faithful to the text of the Constitution. Any contradiction is only imagined.”
On the other hand, Barrister Asad Rahim said that despite extraordinary pressure, the SC had done its duty to the law and Constitution, and singlehandedly kept democracy alive.
“It is a good day for the rule of law, and for Pakistan as a federation,” he told Dawn.com, adding that it now fell on the state — and the people — to make sure the judgment was enforced.
Lawyer Muhammad Ahmad Pansota also hailed the decision as “historic” and said Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial “has chosen to live as one of the greatest chief justices of this country”.
Speaking to Wion news channel, He said he believed it was the first time in this country that the doctrine of necessity had been buried.
He added that the only possible “problematic situation” that could arise would be a “backlash” from the government’s side that would have to be tackled. “But there will be an in-built mechanism in the judgement and the SC will take care of its implementation as well,” he added.
He said the Constitution was clear that the top court’s order was binding on all and so, “the SC will be calling the shots”.
