PUNJAB Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz’s open assault on the Supreme Court for ruling in favour of the PTI in the reserved seats case came as a shock. Although neither her provincial government nor the federal government seems to be at any risk of losing power, Ms Nawaz on Friday appeared to accuse Supreme Court judges of trying to bring Imran Khan back to government by “rewriting” the Constitution. Addressing the superior judiciary, she said: “If a government has been installed […] you should let it run. We will not let this be easy for you. God willing, this government will complete five years. If someone tries to destabilise it or subvert it or create political instability, they will be dealt with iron hands.” As if this wasn’t enough, she implied that the judges of the apex court had “sold their consciences”. This attack seems to be part of the PML-N’s strategy to ‘go on the front foot’ against the Supreme Court and the PTI following the denial of a two-thirds majority in parliament. The ban announced on the PTI was part of this strategy, but it found few takers, including, it seems, from within the PML-N.

Is Plan ‘B’ meant to provoke the judiciary with open threats, even if the PML-N has no good reason to do so? It is true that both Ms Nawaz and her father, Nawaz Sharif, were once made to suffer several unfair decisions by the courts. One of those decisions had robbed Mr Sharif of his government. However, that was then. More recently, the Sharifs have been either the direct or indirect beneficiaries of a slew of important decisions made by the superior courts, and their ‘good fortune’ has seen all their legal worries melt away, almost by miracle. In short, the PML-N has had little to complain about till this particular judgement. Why, then, did Ms Nawaz choose to make herself vulnerable to contempt charges? The judiciary has, in recent months, grown increasingly protective of its independence — something that the PML-N itself was campaigning in favour of till last year. Amidst growing concerns about interference from state institutions, the judges are unlikely to view such comments favourably. Supreme Court decisions are, after all, binding under Article 189. Defiance is contempt. The PML-N should proceed with extreme caution.

Published in Dawn, July 21st, 2024