Scribd
Upload
17 views2 pages

Controversial Timing 10-05

The Supreme Court's reversal of its 2022 ruling on Article 63-A, which allowed votes from defecting lawmakers to be counted, is seen as a correction of a constitutional wrong but raises concerns about its timing amidst a contentious government push for judicial amendments. Critics argue that these amendments could undermine judicial independence and consolidate political power, potentially exacerbating political instability. The perception of the ruling as politically motivated could further erode public trust in the judiciary unless reassurances of impartiality are provided.

Uploaded by

noorjahanoor459
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views2 pages

Controversial Timing 10-05

The Supreme Court's reversal of its 2022 ruling on Article 63-A, which allowed votes from defecting lawmakers to be counted, is seen as a correction of a constitutional wrong but raises concerns about its timing amidst a contentious government push for judicial amendments. Critics argue that these amendments could undermine judicial independence and consolidate political power, potentially exacerbating political instability. The perception of the ruling as politically motivated could further erode public trust in the judiciary unless reassurances of impartiality are provided.

Uploaded by

noorjahanoor459
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Controversial timing

Editorial Published October 5, 2024


A WRONG has been righted. But to what extent? The Supreme Court’s decision to
reverse its 2022 opinion on Article 63-A, allowing votes cast by defecting lawmakers to
be counted, corrects a constitutional wrong.
The earlier ruling had unjustly meant that not only would party defectors be stripped of
their seats, but their votes too would be discarded. This was viewed by many as an
overreach that went beyond the intent of Article 63-A, which sought only to disqualify
defectors, not nullify their votes. On its own, the reversal can be seen as a welcome
move that restores the true essence of parliamentary democracy.
However, the timing of this ruling is debatable. The verdict comes at a time when the
government is determined to push through a contentious ‘constitutional package’ which
aims to curtail the judiciary’s powers by introducing amendments that would pave the
way for a ‘federal constitutional court’. Now that the defectors’ votes can be counted,
this ruling may set in motion horse-trading, handing the government the numbers it
needs. In that sense, the ruling cannot be viewed in isolation — it potentially opens the
doors for a sweeping reconfiguration of the judiciary and the balance of power.
The proposed amendments include plans to limit the apex court’s jurisdiction and alter
the process by which judges are appointed. This will significantly rob the judiciary of its
independence and shift the balance of power to the executive. Critics say that this
package is less about strengthening the Constitution and more about consolidating
political control by a ruling coalition that has struggled to muster enough support for its
agenda.
So, the optics of the verdict, unfortunately, are troubling. While the judgment undoes a
past wrong, it risks being perceived as enabling a myopic political agenda. Such a
perception could further erode public trust in the judiciary, especially in a climate
already rife with accusations of political manoeuvring.
There is a broader question at play: will this judgment and the subsequent amendments
resolve our deep-seated political instability or exacerbate the challenges?
Given the manner in which events have unfolded of late, it seems the latter is more
likely. The amendments seem tailor-made to benefit those pushing for them, with the
verdict regrettably strengthening their hand. One way these concerns could be mitigated
is if the incumbent chief justice publicly declares that he is neither a candidate for any
position within the proposed constitutional court nor does he seek an extension in his
tenure.
Such a declaration would go a long way in dispelling any doubts about the court’s
impartiality. Without such reassurances, the verdict — while rectifying an earlier
decision — may end up serving as the pawn in a larger, more troubling game.

1. Overreach - (Exceeding authority)


2. Nullify - (Invalidate or cancel out)
3. Jurisdiction - (Authority to interpret the law)
4. Myopic - (Short-sighted or narrow in view)
5. Manoeuvring - (Clever or strategic action)
6. Incumbent - (Current holder of an office or position)

You might also like