Prominent Lawyer Salman Akram Raja has made an emphatic plea to all for not nit-picking when it comes to abiding by the Constitution. In a detailed Twitter thread, Raja says the Supreme Court judgment on the Punjab elections is about the fundamental right of over 115 million voters to vote for a representative government. Below is the thread.
This is a time for clarity of commitment to the Constitution. Our state’s future depends on this. Once a dissolution has taken place an election must be held within 90 days. Not one judge of the SC has disagreed with this.
Crores of citizens of Punjab & KP are without representation. That is the issue. Nothing else matters as much. Politics is of passing relevance. Defying the Constitution has permanent consequences.
Once Constitutional limits are taken to be dispensable the entire idea of the law crumbles. Once the matter came to the SC it was possible to have differences about Ar 184(3) & composition of benches. These differences have existed for decades. Wish there was a full court bench.
It is obvious why the KP matter has been separated from Punjab. KP governor’s counsel withdrew from proceedings before the SC. SC allowed the KP gov to be represented & directed separate proceedings. No distinction in the Constitution requirement for KP.
On 23 Feb one SC judge dismissed the suo motu proceedings as well as the petitions by IHC bar and the Punjab/KP speakers. Another questioned the legality of the dissolutions & asked for a full court without dismissing. On 27 Feb all nine asked CJP to reconstitute the bench.
Should courts judge the legality of a dissolution? The world over dissolutions are accepted as political acts. Few things damaged our SC more than involvement in the dissolutions under Ar 58(2)(b). Both Benazir govt were not restored. Mian Nawaz’s govt was. SC was seen as biased
A court must exercise its powers when the constitution/law are violated even if its judgment will have political consequences. A court should not get involved when a political dispute has no clear legal rule in issue. The 90 day limit is a clear rule. Nothing political about it.
On 1 March a reconstituted 5 member bench decided the petitions 3:2. In Panama the bench was never reconstituted. After April 2017 2 judges stopped sitting after delivering their final judgment. They remained part of the bench and final decision was announced 5:0 after the summer
The SC order of 4 April has simply moved the schedule earlier announced by the ECP for elections on 30 April by the 14 days wasted by the illegal notification of elections on 8 Oct. 30 April was a date given by the ECP itself & approved by the Pres.
An Establishment-backed effort to oust another party from the political domain & to subdue the Constitution is underway. The SC orders of 1 March & 4 April have resisted this effort. This continues the pushback we saw from the great Justice Isa when the Faizabad dharna targeted PMLN.
What is heartening is that all apparent sets of judges with differences about use of 184(3) have now & in the past stood up against Establishment-sponsored schemes of interference in the democratic process. The SC as a whole has travelled far from validating constitutional subversions.
