The Supreme Court will convene today (Monday) with all eyes on it. A sadly-reduced bench from the one originally named remains, three judges left after six of the original nine judges remaining have removed themselves or been otherwise dropped, will hear the case. The PML(N) sees the bench as consisting of the core of PTI activists, so-called ‘likeminded judges’. Its leaders have said in so many words that they will not accept the bench’s verdict if it is against its wishes. That statement is ominous enough, for the structure of the Constitution is based on the acceptance by all of the decisions of the Supreme Court, especially when it is declaring what the Constitution and the law say. It becomes even more ominous when the country’s Interior Minister, who happens to be the PML(N) Punjab President, makes such a statement.
Earlier remarks from the Supreme Court have indicated that the Court will rule in favour of the PTI, and declare that elections must be held on April 30, as announced by the President, The Election Commission of Pakistan had put forward the elections for two reasons: lack of funding, and of security personnel. These essentials were to be provided by the Finance, Defence and Interior Ministries. One possibility is that the money and people are being held back because of government reluctance. The other is that these things are really not there. What happens if the Supreme Court orders these Ministries to provide the ECP what it needed. And they didn’t.
Then if the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill, under which the original suo motu notice would be determined by a committee of judges rather than the Chief Justice alone, came into play? Or what if the President doesn’t give assent?
The consequences of disobeying the Supreme Court are extremely grave. However, that does not mean the Supreme Court may pass any order it likes, even if it cannot be obeyed. Of course, it must be clear that refusal is not at all the same as inability. At the same time, the Dupreme Court must be fair: ‘not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done’, as the adage says. While no party may be allowed to choose its decisions, the impression that the Court favours one party over the other must be avoided. That is the real question the Supreme Court must ask itself: has it helped create such an impression, or hindered it?
