The government’s defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision that elections for the Punjab and KP Assemblies are to be held on May 18, was made clear by the unprecedented resolution passed by the National Assembly, white the Election Commission of Pakistan had issued an election schedule, replacing the one it had earlier issued for April 30, and then cancelled after it postponed the polls to October 8. However, though the ECP issued the schedule as it had been instructed to, by the Supreme Court, it still did not seem that the elections would take place on time. The Supreme Court order did not tie in either the funding or security for the election, apart from ordering the government to do the needful. That leaves the Prime Minister open to a charge of contempt of court, if he does not make the arrangements. The National Assembly resolution did not affect the Supreme Court decision in any way, apart from showing what the coalition parties thought of the decision, it also indicated that the PM and his government were in no mood to obey the court order.
The most obvious issue is that PTI chairman Imran Khan has not got what he demanded initially, national elections. He and his party may not even have got the provincial elections they had thought inevitable. However, the PTI has not lost much compared to the judiciary, or rather the Supreme Court, which has had its internal divisions thoroughly exposed. Indeed, it is unlikely that the governing coalition would have been so resolute in its approach had the judiciary been more united in its stance. The spectacle of the original nine-member bench set up to hear the election case, crumbling away to three members, was not edifying, and not likely to enhance the repute of the Court. As if that was not enough, there was the spectacle of a bench headed by Mr Justice Qazi Faez Isa declaring that suo motu cases should not be heard, and its reversal first by a circular by the Registrar and then by a larger bench. As if all that was not enough, there was the controversy, not completely stamped out, over what was the original decision of the Court? If the petition had indeed been rejected 4-3, rather than accepted 3-2, would a contempt petition lie?
Unfortunately, Pakistan’s history has been chequered, and the danger seems to be looming that those powers which the judiciary has favoured, may be aiming to make a comeback. Previous deviations from constitutionality have not worked, nor has the hybrid experiment. There is no reason to reinforce failure, and there must be no further deviations from constitutionality.
