Whither amendment

A much-hyped constitutional amendment, which was set to rewrite the terms of judicial engagement, could not see the light of the day apparently owing to a lack of desired strength on the floor of the house. The mysterious draft remained shrouded in secrecy till both the houses were prorogued, after a high-drama of being in session till the wee hours of Monday. It is for the first time that even members of the ruling clique did not know of the specifics of the bill, conveying a weird impression that extra-parliamentary forces are pulling the strings. It was irritating for both the treasury and the opposition to keep their fingers crossed in the absence of a formal draft, and the governmental persuasion to win over the JUI-F and BNP-Mengal rested on assumptions of the proposed legislation.

While the government is still hopeful to go ahead with the stunt it had created of its own, critics see little potential in it. The JUI-F thoroughly remained in the spotlight as it maneuvered its demands to the core and refused to give in for reasons best known to it. The PTI too put up a good show of defiance but was seen wandering in the dark as many of its legislators went astray and were not in the roll call. Last but not least, what pricked the balloon of amendment was a castigation from the Supreme Court directing the Election Commission to notify the so-called 'Independent' MNAs as PTI members in the lower house. That fizzled out the momentum of floor-crossing. Moreover, the fact that such an overrated set of amendments did not go through the house committees, nor was it presented before the cabinet for approval made it an utterly disgraced show for the PML-N, which was steering the initiative.

The proposed amendment has dented the parliamentary credentials of the ruling coalition, and exposed their alleged intentions of clipping the feathers of the judiciary. Likewise, the thrust to route the appointment of superior judiciary through the legislature and executive would be seen as conflict of interest, along with undesired extension in service tenure of the sitting chief justice.