very few years, we are told that these are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary (and unconstitutional) solutions. When Gen Zia took over, the Supreme Court held, “the Armed Forces had, therefore, to intervene to save the country from further chaos and bloodshed; to safeguard its integrity and sovereignty; and to separate the warring factions which had brought the country to the brink of disaster... the imposition of Martial Law, therefore, stands validated on the doctrine of necessity.”

Just over a decade after Zia, Musharraf was willing, almost enthusiastic, to tear apart the constitution. Once again, the Supreme Court held, “the Armed Forces had to intervene to save the State from further chaos, for maintenance of peace and order, economic stability, justice and good governance and to safeguard integrity and sovereignty of the country dictated by highest considerations of State necessity and welfare of the people.” We have a long, regrettable history of holding the constitution in contempt – a history we do not seem able to escape or overcome.

Last year, when the Supreme Court rightly restored the National Assembly and allowed the vote of no confidence against Imran Khan to go ahead, the now former government welcomed a new era of judicial independence. The burial of the doctrine of necessity was being cheered. This year, when the same court ordered elections to be held within ninety days of dissolution of the provincial assemblies, the government refused to comply. Not only was the constitution held in contempt, but the sanctity of court orders was also destroyed.

The government came up with various reasons for the delay in elections. The security situation, the lack of funds, simultaneous provincial and national elections in the country were all used as justifications for the delay. Once again, like the several times prior, we were being told, the circumstances were ‘extraordinary.’ None of these justifications had a legal or constitutional basis.

“Democracy demands elections, the constitution demands elections. Democracy is meaningless without such an exercise” per the judgment ordering elections to the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies to be held on May 14. The government and some state institutions refused to comply with this decision. Parliament passed resolutions ‘rejecting’ the verdict, judges were vilified, and the chief justice was asked to resign. The state, with all its might, sent a message that it can treat court orders like mere pieces of paper. The result: a Supreme Court with its authority eroded, and an establishment with the upper hand.

“They will not let you go until you hold a press conference,” remarked a judge of the Islamabad High Court while hearing a bail plea. Politicians across the country are being arrested and re-arrested despite getting bail from the courts. After a court order is given, the compliance is uncertain. While a court order was not enough to free an individual from prison, a press conference in the National Press Club would have you home in minutes. When you diminish the authority of court orders, it is never just that one time.

There is no denying that there has been a public divide within the Supreme Court. The chief justice has been accused by his colleagues of running a ‘one-man’ show. The exclusive power of the chief to constitute benches, the exclusion of certain judges from important benches and the manner in which the court’s suo motu jurisdiction has been invoked have raised legitimate questions. No one would dispute the need for reform. However, this cannot be used to undermine the finality of a court decision. Compliance with the constitution cannot be made conditional.

Furthermore, the parliament also passed the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments) and Orders Act, 2023. This law was passed with little to no consultation with stakeholders. It gave a review with the scope of an appeal against judgments and orders of the Supreme Court under Article 184 of the constitution. A review and an appeal are distinct. The scope of a review is far more limited, and it does not involve a complete re-hearing as is the case with an appeal. The effect of the law was to make two completely distinct legal jurisdictions interchangeable. The original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is, undoubtedly, a unique one where the case begins and ends in the Supreme Court. However, that does not give the parliament the right to legislate in a manner that goes against the constitution. If a government wants to change the constitution, there is only one way to do it – through a constitutional amendment. It was right for the law to be struck down.

Ultimately, it is the people who suffer. The unnecessary confrontations with the Judiciary, and the open defiance of court orders, has led to people being deprived of the right to be governed by their elected representatives. It should never have gotten to where it has.

The writer is a barrister. She tweets @RidaHosain