A jaundiced law

The government through a hasty and politically-motivated legislation has locked horns with the judiciary. The bill, Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, states that a political party should not be allocated seats reserved for women and non-Muslim candidates if it fails to submit its list for the reserved seats within the prescribed time. Though there is no harm in amending any section of the law, the catch-22 situation has arisen as the jaundiced dictum is designed to have a retrospective effect, which is simply aimed at circumventing the Supreme Court's July 12 verdict. If pundits of jurisprudence and conventions are to be believed, it is set to be struck down by the apex court pushing the volatility between organs of the state to new heights.

The opposition PTI's decision to challenge the new law has some considerate assumptions. While the petition under Article 184(3) goes on to cite that the "…expression of the will of the people once made cannot be retrospectively subjected to restrictions that were non-existent at the time, and that are in any case unconstitutional…", and also falls in contravention of fundamental rights under Article 17, it all depends on the initial hearing and how articulate the aggrieved party is in pushing the envelope.

The PTI's track record of defending pleas, at least in the top court, is very poor and it has a challenge to read between the lines with clarity and without any misgivings. It has to prove the malice in law, which is there by design, as the intention behind the impugned law is to obstruct implementation of a legal decision, and that too which had taken a comprehensive view of judicial crisscross over electioneering and subsequent conduct of constitutional organs.

The debate on the floor of the house has interestingly brought to the fore an issue of political propriety. The MQM, an ally of the ruling dispensation, while decrying its bulldozing, is quite clear that it is 'worst piece of law' and would not stand in the dock. The point is why allies go on to voice in 'ayes' if it is understood to be ultra vires. This is where the bias rests, and pitches the legislature against the court of law.