The Supreme Court (SC), in its landmark decision announced on 11.07.2024 surprised the government, the supra executive, and all political parties, including the beneficiaries of leftover reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, as well as the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf). However, it did not surprise those who had diligently been following the Supreme Court’s hearings on the impugned case, petitioned by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) through their brilliant lawyer, Faisal Siddiqui.
On June 4, 2024, during the first hearing of the SC telecast live, I was glued to the TV screen, trying to absorb and educate myself from the highly intense, intricate, and complex proceedings of the SC in the impugned case. I was amazed at how each judge intensely, aggressively, and independently strove to grasp any end of the jumbled thread of legal, political, and social intricacies of the case in an attempt to untangle the complexity.
In the evening, I wrote an article titled “Judges vs Judges,” published in the national daily on the same day. The concluding paragraph stated, “After diligently and carefully observing both sides, the likely judgment is a split verdict from the full bench, which may restore PTI as a party in the National and Provincial Assemblies and allocate the reserved seats to it.”
In another article titled “PTI’s Fate Hangs on Form vs. Substance,” penned on June 24 following the SC hearing, I commented, “During the discussion, an important concept of ‘form and substance,’ distinguishing between the procedural aspects of a legal matter (form) and its core issues and merits (substance), was discussed. I hoped that substance, not form, would prevail, meaning that fundamental rights and justice would triumph.” In an article titled “PTI: From Hardships to Hope,” I wrote, “We can expect a decision that may surprise both the establishment and the government alike and will have a significant impact on the composition of the National and Provincial Assemblies and the governments.” After the last Supreme Court hearing, I wrote, “This judgment may either put the country back on the constitutional path or...” These layman observations were reflective of the correct intent of the Supreme Court’s full bench.
While lawyers, commentators, analysts, and jurists welcomed the decision, the government, which is not even a party to the case, through its law minister reacted angrily to the split verdict, stating that the SC had overstepped its authority by interpreting the constitution in a way that amounted to rewriting it. He added that this decision thwarted the government’s attempt to bring constitutional amendments to censure judges who were negligent in their duties and to hold them accountable for their omissions and commissions. Other commentators observed that the judiciary has finally liberated itself from the influence of the executive and has asserted its independence. They argued that the government’s proposed constitutional amendments were aimed at reasserting control over the judiciary after their unlawful means to control the judiciary finally failed. The SC, by this judgment, they noted, has thwarted such attempts.
Be that as it may, I will be adding to what I have already written in my next letter to the newspaper very soon.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.