Admitting the Supreme Court (SC) verdict in the Punjab polls delay case as "legally correct", the country's legal fraternity debated the consequences of the order on Tuesday.
Earlier, a three-member SC bench hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition challenging the delay in Punjab polls nullified the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision on Tuesday, declaring it "unconstitutional".
Lawyer Waqar Mir while responding to activist Ammar Ali Jan in a tweet said that "legally this is absolutely the correct decision. However, the road we have taken to arrive at this verdict and the divisions embraced or allowed will likely haunt us for a while".
Legally this is absolutely the correct decision. However the road we have taken to arrive at this verdict, and the divisions embraced/allowed, will likely haunt us for while. https://t.co/uqQpNQlfxP
— Waqqas Mir (@wamwordoflaw) April 4, 2023
Prominent lawyer and analyst Muhammad Ahmad Pansota responded to his tweet saying "as long as the decision is legally correct, we can ignore the divisions".
As long as the decision is legally correct we can ignore the divisions. However, I still feel what you refer to as division is dissent in the SC. I am glad that all seventeen judges think differently. https://t.co/uMilLRlYbB
— Muhammad Ahmad Pansota (@Pansota1) April 4, 2023
"However," he added, "I still feel what you refer to as division is dissent in the SC. I am glad that all seventeen judges think differently."
Read Tarar foresees political crisis 'worsening' after SC polls verdict
To this, Mir responded saying, "the 'division' was not a reference to judicial dissent which I have long been an advocate of. We do need more dissent."
The “division” wasn’t a reference to judicial dissent which I have long been an advocate of. We do need more dissent. We ignore the chasms that go beyond political or judicial dissent at our own peril. “Ignore” and pretend it’s not happening? Tried that a few times, never works https://t.co/YrxjvnLQds
— Waqqas Mir (@wamwordoflaw) April 4, 2023
"We ignore the chasms that go beyond political or judicial dissent at our own peril. 'Ignore' and pretend it is not happening? Tried that a few times, never works," he said.
Meanwhile, Pansota hailed the SC ruling saying Chief Justice Bandial, as he headed the SC bench, "chose to be Justice Cornelius and buried the doctrine of necessity once and for all".
Justice Bandial chooses to be Justice Cornelius and buries doctrine of necessity once for all. Undoubtedly, he will go as the greatest ever Chief Justice in the history of Pakistan.
— Muhammad Ahmad Pansota (@Pansota1) April 4, 2023
"Undoubtedly," he maintained, "he [CJ Bandial] will go as the greatest chief justice ever in the history of Pakistan".
For all the “Press Conferencers” and “Boycotters” please read Article 189 & 190.
— Muhammad Ahmad Pansota (@Pansota1) April 4, 2023
“189. Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan.
190.…
He also took a dig at those criticising the decision and threatening to boycott the SC's verdict as he shared Article 189 and 190 of the constitution that posit that orders of the SC are binding upon all other courts in Pakistan and that all judicial and executive authorities must act in aid of the apex court, respectively.
On the other hand, Mir maintained that "if the Doctrine of Necessity could be 'buried' so easily, it wouldn't be much of a ghost."
If the Doctrine of Necessity could be "buried" so easily, it wouldn't be much of a ghost. I'm curious how or why people think it is buried. The ghost isn't going anywhere. It has been around all along and one could be forgiven for saying that it stands in a corner, chuckling away
— Waqqas Mir (@wamwordoflaw) April 4, 2023
"I'm curious how or why people think it is buried," he continued, "the ghost isn't going anywhere. It has been around all along and one could be forgiven for saying that it stands in a corner, chuckling away".
Another lawyer, Salaar Khan stated that while "one can legitimately debate the procedure [...] this would still have been the correct ultimate outcome".
One can legitimately debate the procedure. But whether this was a full court of the SC or a high court, this would still have been the correct ultimate outcome.
— Salaar Khan (@Brainmasalaar) April 4, 2023
To condone the alternative is to allow the clear text of the Constitution to yield to the 2023 remix of Necessity.
"To condone the alternative is to allow the clear text of the constitution to yield to the 2023 remix of necessity," he added, "that said, the importance of procedure cannot be understated -- and for the same reason."
That said, the importance of procedure cannot be understated- and for the same reason.
— Salaar Khan (@Brainmasalaar) April 4, 2023
The ends justifying the means is exactly that: Necessity by another name.
One can recognise this while remaining faithful to the text of the Constitution. Any contradiction is only imagined.
"The ends justifying the means is exactly that: necessity by another name. One can recognise this while remaining faithful to the text of the Constitution. Any contradiction is only imagined," he said.
Read more SC drops suo motu proceedings pertaining to Justice Isa's order
Others anticipated another "constitutional crisis" would follow.
Constitutional crisis here we come, right back where we started from
— Abdul Moiz Jaferii (@Jaferii) April 4, 2023
Dr Osama Siddique opined that "CJ Bandial could’ve avoided further meltdown by going for full court. He has predictably chosen attrition and contestation".
CJ Bandial could’ve avoided further meltdown by going for Full Court. He has predictably chosen attrition & contestation. The fault lines of the SC now very evident in how he has picked the larger bench & who heads it despite legit bias concerns. Heads will roll. Let’s see whose? https://t.co/CiQ01hM1vS
— Osama Siddique (@DrOsamaSiddique) April 4, 2023
"The fault lines of the SC now very evident in how he has picked the larger bench and who heads it despite legit bias concerns," he lamented, adding that, "Heads will roll. Let’s see whose?".
Constitutional lawyer Maryam S Khan said that "given the flux in power dynamics right now, one should expect the ECP to fight back, and in the process regain lost ground on the question of jurisdiction."
Given the flux in power dynamics right now, one should expect the Election Commission to fight back, and in the process regain lost ground on the question of jurisdiction. Let the play continue around the Constitution. What better way to usher in its 50th anniversary 😉
— Maryam S. Khan (@MaryamShKhan) April 4, 2023
"Let the play continue around the constitution," she said sarcastically, "what better way to usher in its 50th anniversary".
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ