A Welcome Correction, But at What Cost?

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn its 2022 ruling on Article 63-A marks a correction of a constitutional misstep. The previous judgment, which disallowed the counting of votes cast by defecting lawmakers, had imposed a punitive measure that extended beyond the article’s intent. Article 63-A was designed to disqualify defectors, not to nullify their votes entirely. This reversal, therefore, can be seen as a step in the right direction, reinforcing the core principles of parliamentary democracy.
However, the context in which this verdict has been delivered raises concerns. It arrives at a time when the government is pushing forward a controversial ‘constitutional package’ aimed at curbing the judiciary’s powers. Among the proposed amendments is the creation of a ‘federal constitutional court’ and the limitation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, which could potentially erode judicial independence. These changes would give the executive greater control over judicial appointments and decision-making, threatening the separation of powers.
The timing of the ruling allows for the counting of defectors’ votes, which could provide the government with the necessary support to pass this controversial package. This development opens the door to horse-trading and political maneuvering, potentially giving the ruling coalition the numbers it needs to push through these amendments. As such, while the verdict corrects a previous wrong, it risks being viewed as part of a larger political agenda.
Critics argue that the proposed amendments are not about strengthening constitutional governance but rather about consolidating power in the hands of the ruling government, which has struggled to gather enough backing for its initiatives. This perception, coupled with the timing of the court’s decision, could further damage public confidence in the judiciary, which is already vulnerable to accusations of political bias.
A larger question looms: will this judgment and the subsequent amendments help stabilize Pakistan’s political landscape, or will they deepen existing divisions? Given the current political climate, the latter seems more likely. The amendments appear tailor-made to benefit those pushing for them, and the Supreme Court’s ruling inadvertently strengthens their hand.
One possible way to alleviate these concerns is if the chief justice publicly states that he has no interest in any position within the proposed constitutional court and does not seek an extension of his tenure. Such a move would go a long way in restoring faith in the court’s impartiality.
While the verdict addresses a constitutional overreach, without such reassurances, it risks being seen as a tool in a broader, more troubling political game.