The Supreme Court is starting to rumble more and more. Judge Mansoor Ali Shah emphasized that following the rulings of the supreme court is “optional” in an order concerning the National Bank of Pakistan’s delayed pension payments.
Observing that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, he said in the ruling that “to disregard or delay the implementation of [the Supreme Court’s] verdicts is to challenge the very framework of our legal system.” As a result of non-compliance, he has said, there is a risk of executive overreach.The observations made by Justice Shah, which he reiterated in his remarks at a conference the following day, have sparked conjecture over the possible course of events in the reserved seats case. Recall that the government recently passed legislation intended to thwart the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, and that the government’s delegates and supporters have alternatedly attacked the ruling and the eight justices who supported it.
“The judiciary’s ability to function effectively is fundamentally dependent on its ability to hold individuals or entities in contempt for their failure to comply with a court order.”In his ruling, Judge Shah notes. “The administration of justice would be in jeopardy as the judiciary would be rendered toothless and unable to enforce its decisions without this power.”
The ECP can be the weapon’s first casualty if the sword of scorn is drawn. The ECP has consistently refused to recognize the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and has acted as though it is not required to follow laws or court orders. This refusal to respect has continued in this case. It should have followed the court’s orders and given the PTI all the reserved seats that had accumulated by now, but instead it has sided with the government to undermine the ruling.However, the justice system itself has some of the responsibility. Controversy arose because of the political class’s mistrust of the supreme court because of certain previous rulings and actions. These activities include supporting military coups and helping to remove at least two prime ministers. But it’s important to remember that its rulings were followed in these particular circumstances as well.
Secondly, it is imperative for the court to recognize that the controversy surrounding the reserved seats issue persists due to the lack of a detailed decision. It must acknowledge that, in addition to taking the necessary steps to protect the constitutional order and enforce its writ, it must also act quickly to announce the full ruling in order to resolve the complaints against it.
A contentious political problem has emerged around the allocated seats case. To see the situation through, a great deal of wisdom and restraint are required.
