Residents of the twin cities won’t forget the horrors of the TLP’s occupation of the Faizabad interchange back in November 2017. Over a year later, they, and their fellow countrymen, can have a catharsis of sorts, thanks to an articulate Supreme Court judgment over a suo moto action on that sit-in. (For more on background and aftermath of those terrible times, read: “A Faustian bargain,” published November 29, 2017. A similar fiasco enveloped the whole country late last year, for which, read: “Wanted: rule of law,” published November 6, 2018).

The judgment should go down as an important reminder to ensure “rule of law” if the country’s society and economy are to progress. While the ruling defends the people’s “right of assembly, the freedom of association and the freedom of speech”, it makes it amply clear that those freedoms should be exercised such that they don’t infringe upon the “fundamental rights of others”, which include the “right of free movement” for the general public.

The wordings suggest that the state, as a collective, failed its people during that sit-in – just as it failed during the great dharna (Aug-Dec 2014) and during the May 12, 2017 Karachi “massacre”. The judgment doesn’t single out the planners, financiers and abettors of the November 2017 sit-in. Perhaps it should have, as other past suo-moto actions have fixed individual culpability. But it probably didn’t, for the TLP leadership is already in custody, albeit on charges relating to more recent and different circumstances.

But the February 6 SC ruling still provides ample material – based on Pakistan’s own constitutional provisions, legal statutes and its leader’s sayings – to provoke some introspection among state institutions and political parties. Periodic law and order situation – with mobs locking down major highways and interchanges – doesn’t exactly help investor confidence. Reading the judgment, two aspects of reforms stand out.

First, to attain a balance between fundamental rights – especially when one group’s freedom of speech and assembly come in conflict with the freedom of movement of another group – it is time to devise a mechanism so that protests are held without creating public disturbance and incitement to violence. The political parties must come together and establish some ground rules for protests.

And second, by touching on the issue of political party financing (who founded and funded the TLP?), the judgment also questions what seasoned political observers have increasingly pointed out in recent years: an arbitrary electoral process fronted by a toothless Election Commission. The people’s representation will continue to suffer if the ECP remains selective, or lazy, in applying the rule of law when it comes to matters pertaining to political parties. It is time for the ECP to recognize its own constitutional mandate.

Be that as it may, the country is only one dharna away from finding out whether or not the recent ruling has caught the imagination of those who matter behind closed doors. However, the current political realities – a compliant government and a pliant opposition – suggest that the whole dharna business will be put on a backburner for some time. It remains to be seen how far the apex court will go in enforcing its directives. The judgment doesn’t find individuals culpable but it does refer to institutions’ responsibilities.