Sooner or later, it appears, the political parties will have to prepare for early elections.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, which took suo motu notice of the situation resulting from an unprecedented ruling by the deputy speaker disallowing the no-confidence motion against the prime minister and the subsequent dissolution of National Assembly, had indicated during lengthy hearings that it may be better for the political parties to agree to early elections to avoid the mayhem resulting from a judgment resisted by some of the stakeholders. The court had encouraged leaders of the political parties to “move forward”.

The five-member bench of the SCP, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan, was already hearing the presidential reference on defections from the ruling party. Opposition parties had argued that the disallowing of the no-confidence resolution followed by the dissolution of the National Assembly, was extra-constitutional and a blatant violation of the rules and procedures of the house. They had demanded that the court restore the status quo ante.

Mian Raza Rabbani of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had pleaded that in view of the submissions made to the court the situation prior to the April 3 ruling of the deputy speaker of the National Assembly be restored.

Lawyers from the ruling party, the government and the president had maintained that the ruling was protected by a constitutional provision and the doctrine of separation of domains of the Legislature and the Judiciary. They had also argued that once an appeal had been made to the electorate all parties should prepare for elections. The PTI had also maintained that there was a foreign-sponsored move to derail this regime and that defections from the party had been managed using corrupt means. The best remedy therefore was fresh elections.

Barrister Ali Zafar, the counsel for president had argued that the court was barred from judging the proceedings of the parliament even if those were legally flawed. The immunity provision, he said, was a “firewall that court cannot leap over”.

During the last hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that it was clear that the April 3 ruling of the National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri, which dismissed the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, was wrong.

“The question at hand is what happens next,” he said. He had asked the counsel for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan to assist the court from this point of departure.

“We have to look at the national interest,” the court had remarked.

“The ruling is erroneous but I think going to the electorate is not an anti-democratic way. Where is the malice in that? Though there seems to be an element of trickery and opposition might have that grouse. Are they afraid of going to the peoplel?” remarked the CJ.

Meanwhile, the Punjab faced a chaotic situation after Chief Minister Buzdar resigned to make way for the election of Chaudhry Parvez Elahi who was nominated as the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf candidate to replace him. The situation resulted in more defections from the PTI due to resentment and protest that the entrant should be from the PTI which had more 183 members of the house among 371. It was also clear that the PML-N could not form a government without the support of defectors.

Given the polarisation it appeared that any verdict the SC gave would not satisfy everybody. It was said that a campaign even against the court cannot be ruled out. The court realised that dealing with the anarchy will be an uphill task.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was asked whether it could hold elections within 90 days. The ECP stated that it would require at least seven months to prepare for smooth, free and fair elections. The ECP had taken a similar position in response to a letter written by President Arif Alvi who had asked the ECP to propose dates for holding general elections.

The ECP maintained fresh delimitation of constituencies, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where the number of seats had been increased under the 26th Amendment, and update of district and constituency-wise electoral rolls in conformity with the census results were the major challenges.

The election campaign is likely to be marred by acrimony and hostility with anti-American sentiment fuelling the right-wing vote bank.

    The awaited verdict

he Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday restored the status quo ante with regard to dismissal of a no-confidence motion by the National Assembly deputy speaker, the prime minister’s advice for dissolution of the assembly and the president’s order following it. Head the five-member bench, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial declared that the ruling of the deputy speaker disallowing the no confidence motion was “contrary to the constitution” and set aside all subsequent actions including dissolution of the assembly and calling for a caretaker setup. The order also restored the prime minister and his cabinet to their offices. The court also directed the NA speaker to summon and hold a sitting of the assembly in the present session, which will now take place on an immediate basis on Saturday.

“We should take it as a moment to celebrate this victory for the constitution and democracy,” said Reema Omer, a political and legal analyst.

“The restoration of the assembly is a victory for rule of law. The court has buried the doctrine of necessity,” agree Nayyar Bukhari of the Pakistan Peoples Party.

How the judgment affects the functioning of the parliament remains to be seen over the coming days as the political mercury is at an all-time high. This provides the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf an opportunity for reconsidering its strategy and approaching politics with a fresh perspective.

“Clearly the SC verdict will have detractors based on political affiliations but a welcome fact is that it is based on points of law. That’s how constitutional matters must be decided. Now it is for politicians to sort out their mess. Early elections are a good option,” analyst Mohammad Malick said.

Barrister Ali Zafar, the counsel for president had argued that the court was barred from judging the proceedings of the parliament even if those were legally flawed. The immunity provision, he said, was a “firewall that court cannot leap over”.

The author is a staff    reporter. He can be reached at vaqargillani@gmail.com      @waqargillani