Yesterday, the National Assembly adopted a resolution rejecting the Supreme Court’s (SC) three-member bench’s order instructing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to hold immediate elections. As far as the Election Commission of Pakistan is concerned, the Supreme Court’s decision to hold elections in Punjab on May 14 is being implemented for the time being. In an emergency meeting on Wednesday, the ECP announced a revision to the Punjab election timetable and set the SC-mandated election date of May 14 as the new election date.
Although this formal step has been informed, the political crisis in the nation shows no indications of ending. While the coalition government is busy crafting and passing parliamentary resolutions against the three-member bench verdict, the PTI is celebrating the judgement while the coalition government has rejected it. What stands out most in all of this is that we could have avoided most of this if the Supreme Court’s ‘process’ had not sparked such a storm. An already polarised society has become much more so on issues such as the constitution, the judicial process, and reforms.
As Supreme Court justices have repeatedly stated, dissent is a necessary aspect of the judicial system and, as such, symbolises the beauty of the courts. However, the delicate line between dissenting judgements and a wholly divided higher court is unfortunately visible to all.
And politicians on both sides are exploiting the rift for their own gain. Where there are references to April 4 and the “murder of justice,” there are also celebrations of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the doctrine of necessity. All of it may be true, but for the time being, justice is caught in the crossfire of an incredibly ugly conflict that began more than five years ago and has only become uglier by the day.
It may be all the more reason to argue for long-term judicial reforms that ensure the judicial branch fulfils its constitutionally authorised job. The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill, 2023, is considered a move in that direction, and there is yet a glimmer of hope that it will be realised by those who are portraying it—without justification—as a scheme to strip the Supreme Court of its powers. In truth, the law is attempting to correct some of the more typical courtroom controversies that we have recently encountered.
And, indeed, the Supreme Court ought to back away from the undue attention it has received from self-serving political forces. But all is not well when even higher court justices publicly criticise issues such as bench structure and accusations of partiality, with one side of the apex court regarded as supporting one party and the other another. Given the very volatile political environment and the unnecessary controversy surrounding the courts, this view could have been avoided if a full court bench had been convened to hear these constitutional challenges.
Legal analysts have even traced the Punjab election issue back to the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of Article 63A, which transformed the political dynamics in the Punjab Assembly entirely. The question now is how justice can exist if its credibility is called into question. As a result, the judiciary may need to find a method to reach out to one another and resolve its internal issue. After all, the collective knowledge of the Supreme Court judges—through a full court—has always been regarded as the best method to reach a consensus. May collective wisdom triumph over individualism, allowing the superior judiciary to be recognised as the final and unbiased judge of justice in the land.
