IT is, of course, the chief justice of Pakistan’s prerogative to appoint a bench at his discretion to hear any case brought before the Supreme Court, yet many will view the decision yesterday to dismiss all demands for the formation of a full court bench to hear Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mazari’s ruling in the chief minister’s election held on July 22 in a different light.

Despite criticism and questions about the ‘integrity’ of the three-member bench hearing the case, the court decided to proceed with the same bench, reasoning that the matter did not seem to be of such grave importance that a full court bench be constituted to hear it.

Read more: Risk of a perfect storm

Observers are now expecting the crisis to turn into a three-way showdown between the civilian leadership, the judiciary and, perhaps, the establishment. At the centre of the confrontation is a Supreme Court interpretation of Article 63-A; specifically, a short order from a five-member bench regarding the treatment of votes cast by lawmakers deemed to have defected from their party. The order in question was instrumental in the ejection of 25 PTI MPAs from the Punjab Assembly in May, and, more recently, in the overturning of the victory of PML-Q’s Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi in the July 22 election for Punjab chief minister.

Critics say the current crisis arose because the Supreme Court had, while interpreting 63-A in its initial verdict, effectively rewritten the Constitution and yet not issued its detailed ruling on the matter, creating a lacuna that the PDM successfully exploited. Those who defend the Supreme Court say that the critics are, either deliberately or innocently, misconstruing the Supreme Court judgement, and that Mr Mazari completely misinterpreted the judgement to arrive at his desired conclusion.

With the PDM coalition now looking like it is in the mood for a fight, it seems that we may be heading towards another clash of institutions. In a forceful Monday afternoon press conference, key PDM leaders had called on the chief justice to requisition a full-court bench to deliberate Mr Mazari’s ruling on the CM election. Other government representatives had threatened to otherwise boycott court proceedings, questioning why the “same three judges” hear cases that concern them.

Read more: Self-serving politics

The subtle accusations of partiality were unnecessary, but given the gravity of the situation and the severity of the crisis at hand, the Supreme Court should perhaps have considered the ‘request’ more generously than it did. If not politicians, it should have considered the advice of multiple former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association as well as former SHC chief justice Maqbool Baqar, who had recommended a full court bench to hear the matter.

A full court indeed seemed like an appropriate forum to settle with finality the controversy and debate over various interpretations of Article 63-A, but one fears the matter will continue to linger in the weeks and months ahead.

Published in Dawn, July 26th, 2022