SC's rebuke of ECP

Supreme Court rebukes ECP, complicating the government's majority and stalling a controversial judiciary amendment.

The Supreme Court's castigation of the Election Commission of Pakistan, over the delay in implementation of reserved seats judgment, has come as a double-edged sword for the government. It literally seems to have altered the arithmetic mosaic of the lower house by denying the ruling dispensation its simple majority, apart from shutting the doors on any kind of floor crossing over a controversial amendment that the coalition was mulling to table in the parliament to alter the process for appointment of Supreme Court Chief Justice and raise the retirement age for superior court judges. The clarification from eight judges of the apex court - who termed ECP's delaying tactics on the July 12 verdict as "misconceived" - has sealed the fate of politics, and hinted at the frame of mind that the superior judiciary harnesses for keeping the record straight in constitutional provisions.

The four-page statement from the top court in the evening hours of Saturday, which coincided with the National Assembly session for tabling the amendment bill, made it clear that the "absence of an election symbol does not void a political party's legal and constitutional rights", and declared that the PTI remains a recognised political party. This is enough to water down the maneuvering on the part of the ruling clique that was counting on 41 PTI MNAs as 'Independents', hoping for their 'ayes' over the voting of the bill. Moreover, reports of intimidating the BNP-M and JUI-F legislators for supporting the amendment have soured the environment, and it seems the government is in troubled territory.

The much-awaited precision on the July 12 ruling has put the ECP and the government in the dock, and they would be better advised to go by the book rather than jumping the gun. With political instability at its height, any piece of misadventure to exhibit defiance will further unnerve the equation, and put organs of the state in a renewed conflict. The government may have its own valid reasons for seeing a rationale in the proposed amendment, but the fact is that it is being bulldozed in contravention of the set precedents when the chips are down.