On the face of it the last big hurdle to the general election has been crossed, in that the Supreme Court has rejected Dr Tahirul Qadri's petition through which he had sought apex court's direction to reconstitute Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Of course, his very arrival on the national scene at this late hour was suspected as a prologue to some kind of a conspiracy to delay polls to justify need for a relatively long-term caretaker set-up.
But the way he conducted his show he could win quite a few sympathisers to his side. Even when his argument for reconstitution of ECP was found to be patently flawed, his eloquence had generated sizeable public interest. In fact, there was considerable support for the merits of his case among informed circles. But somehow, some of the fundamental legal dictums were being overlooked. Now that the apex court has given its verdict on Dr Qadri's petition, it has become clear how much out of focus was the general public debate.
For instance, a petitioner, and that if he is a lawyer by training, is expected to have come to the court fully confident that he has knocked the proper door and will get justice. Did Dr Qadri come with an open mind, absolutely clear of mala fides? One would doubt it. His was a shot in the dark; if the Supreme Court accepts his argument and orders reconstitution of the ECP he would welcome it, otherwise he was all set to malign the court. His ludicrous antics in the court room including waving of a photo showing Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry taking oath of office from President Pervez Musharraf proves beyond doubt that his intention was mala fide. That the court spared him and did not charge him with contempt of court was its magnanimity. Remember how much excited he was on learning that the same court had declared the prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf, an accused in the RPP scam and ordered arrest of all accused during the 'dharna' at D-Chowk, Islamabad. "Mubarak ho, Mubarak ho (congratulations to you)" he was shouting, insisting half of his mission to bring down the 'corrupt system' had been accomplished. Compare that with his mouth-frothing criticism soon after the court rejected his petition. It is the nature of things that courts deliver justice, blindly.
Dr Qadri's petition also fell foul of time-honoured legal concept of laches or an unreasonable delay in making an assertion and claim, in that the petitioner was negligent in making use of opportunity not by months but by almost two years. The present composition of the ECP is not new that he couldn't approach the court earlier. Now that elections are round the corner, he has come to subvert its timeline. With almost everything now going for a timely election, his argument even if it had any merit, cannot be entertained.
In a similar situation when the court was convinced that dismissal of Mohammad Khan Junejo's government by General Ziaul Haq under the then available Article 58 2(B) was unconstitutional, it did not restore the Junejo government. The court did not want to derail the democratic process as election was very close. At 'this stage' the present court too has taken the same position. But add to this the apex court's very first question about the petitioner's credentials as a person who is entitled to relief under Article 184 (C) - Dr Qadri doesn't fit that definition - because he didn't approach the court in that capacity. In fact, nowhere in his petition had he mentioned anything like that. Then, there was also an issue with his locus standi as the rightful petitioner. By taking oath of Canadian citizenship does he fall out of the category of petitioners under Article 184 (C)? The detailed order of the court is yet to be issued and it would be of immense interest to the people at large as to what the court has to say on the matter of dual nationality. We expect Qadri sahib to accept the court's verdict with an open mind, befitting a person of his status and stature.