'Legally correct': lawyers weigh in on SC Punjab polls verdict

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".

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".

"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."

"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".

"Undoubtedly," he maintained, "he [CJ Bandial] will go as the greatest chief justice ever in the history of Pakistan".

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."

"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".

"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."

"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.

Dr Osama Siddique opined that "CJ Bandial could’ve avoided further meltdown by going for full court. He has predictably chosen attrition and contestation".

"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."

"Let the play continue around the constitution," she said sarcastically, "what better way to usher in its 50th anniversary".