ISLAMABAD, Sept 28: What came as a rare good news for General Pervez Musharraf in his most difficult times, the Supreme Court ruling on Friday dismissing challenges to his dual position as president and army chief seemed to be a recipe for more legal battles and possible street action.

The 6-3 majority ruling by a nine-judge bench of the court appears to be a big boost to the President Musharraf’s political ambitions just a week before the controversial Oct 6 election he is sure to win for another term but a legal blow to his political opponents after more than two months of celebrations of what they had hailed as the birth of an independent judiciary.

But the president’s opponents, who posed the challenges in petitions before the court, and legal activists have refused to accept defeat or the verdict and vowed to fight on in judicial forums and agitate on streets.

The next eight days before the Oct 6 vote are likely to see a mind-boggling flurry of events that political sources said could fuel political tensions and even lead to violence after an opposition threat to bring supporters on the streets and a warning of “strong action” against law-breakers from an apparently elated Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz after chairing an emergency meeting of his cabinet.

The opposition moves will range from more legal challenges against General Musharraf to resignations from the National Assembly and four provincial assemblies, which form the presidential electoral college together with the Senate, and a threatened dissolution of the North West Frontier Province assembly to rob the vote of political legitimacy.

The legal challenges to the president’s candidacy will be posed before the Election Commission when it holds the scrutiny of nomination papers filed by him and a total 42 other candidates, including two prominent figures – People’s Party Parliamentarians chief Makhdoom Amin Fahim and former Supreme Court judge Wajihuddin Ahmed.

While the opposition parties have already said they have no faith in the Election Commission after it made amendments in election rules that benefit General Musharraf, they plan to come back to the Supreme Court on Monday to renew the legal battle and ask for a hearing by the full court instead of only nine judges that gave them a technical knockout.

The previous petitions challenging General Musharraf’s right to be both the president and army chief and contest election in that dual capacity stood dismissed when they were held “not maintainable” by six judges and “maintainable” and “accepted” by bench chief Justice Rana Bhagwandas and two other judges.

Both these views, expressed in a three-sentence short order after two weeks of hearings, were based on clause (3) of article 184 of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over questions of public importance regarding enforcement of fundamental rights.

Legal sources pointed out that the bench short order did not rule over General Musharraf’s right to hold two offices or to stand for what he calls a second and opposition regards as the third presidential term and said these issues would be raised before the Election Commission on Saturday and in subsequent appeals before the Supreme Court.

It was a reflection of extraordinary times facing the country and intensity of feelings over the issue when cries of “shame, shame” and “go Musharraf go” echoed inside the courtroom just as the nine judges were retiring to their chambers after the ruling, which was greeted with even a harsher reaction from a charged crowd of people gathered outside.

But the trend seemed to be dangerous for the functioning of courts, especially when they give unpopular verdicts like Friday’s.

It was also rare that some legal luminaries publicly expressed doubts about the integrity of some of the judges of the bench, particularly for rejecting the petitions on a technical ground of maintainability after what they called wasting time in 10 hearings in two weeks.

Some critics saw a resurrection of the so-called “doctrine of necessity” used by the superior judiciary to uphold military coups in the past but which was regarded as buried by a ruling on July 20 by another Supreme Court bench that reinstated Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry by throwing out a presidential charge-sheet, or reference, aimed to sack him.

Some legal circles had felt uncomfortable over what they saw over-dependence of politicians on the judiciary to advance their political goals after the historic July 20 judgement, in which the superior judiciary was seen standing up to a military ruler for the first time in 60 years of the country’s life.

Confidence in the judiciary further increased by some subsequent rulings of the apex court, including one ordering the release of imprisoned acting PML-N president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi in August and another to allow former prime minister Nawaz Sharif return home after about seven years of exile, which did not materialise as he was flown back to Saudi Arabia on Sept 10 within hours after landing at Islamabad airport.

While the government hailed Friday’s decision as one spokesman called a “victory of justice”, and immediate comments by opposition politicians and leading lawyers betrayed a quick return to the old lack of faith, some of them calling the majority ruling a “dictation” given by President Musharraf.