The short order in the reserved seats case is here. A full bench of the Supreme Court, convening in its complete strength and majesty, issued a short order after weeks of grueling and, at times, circular arguments by counsels on both sides. Though not a unanimous decision, it had the commanding nod of eight honourable judges, including Senior Puisne Judge Mansoor Ali Shah. As held in the Qazi Faez Isa review judgment, “the judgment of the court is characterized as the judgment of the entire Bench, rather than of the majority judges.” Despite strongly worded dissents from other judges, the decision will be regarded as a full court decision, not merely the decision of eight judges of the Supreme Court.

In the background, while mainstream television was busy inviting legal experts to speculate on the much-anticipated judgment with its detailed reasoning, the Government launched its counterstrike. In a Pavlovian response, it attempted to neutralise the full court decision through a hastily prepared amendment to the Election Act, 2017.

The relevant part of the amendment bolsters a specific section that mandates candidates to file party affiliation certificates. It grants this section carte blanche over all other parliamentary legislation and court judgments, including those of the Supreme Court—leaving the reserved decision in limbo. Though the amendment did not explicitly state it, “defiance” was written all over it. The worn-out slogans of “parliamentary supremacy” were once again dusted off, with the same old vigour, to rejuvenate our 8 p.m. talk shows with the elected vs unelected debates.

While the scenario may appear distinct, with the sprinkling of new facts and characters, the tactics deployed by the ruling parties remain the same. Our country has seen such ‘collision courses’ with varying intensity since its independence. However, the old power dynamics seem increasingly ineffective in the rapidly changing times, and their players appear unaware of the gradually weakening nature of such tactics in the history of other democratic countries.

The seventh president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, besides revoking treaties with the indigenous people of America, is remembered for his aggressive stance against the Supreme Court. He challenged their authority under the constitutional scheme and often ignored the court’s orders, allegedly once saying: “Marshall (the then Chief Justice of the U.S.) has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

While such defiance against the U.S. Supreme Court persisted through various presidencies, the judiciary eventually garnered enough legitimacy to push back against any attempts to circumvent or blatantly disregard their decisions. They established their independent existence by interpreting laws and did not shy away from striking down those that violated the constitution. Their judgments consciously drew an uncrossable line along the constitution that whispered ‘constitutional supremacy’ even in the ears of the most popular and cogent governments.

Our Supreme Court appears to be following a similar path. The judiciary’s intention was made strikingly clear through another case that followed the reserved seats short order. The case concerned a delay in the release of pensions despite previously issued directives by the apex court. This resulted in another order, though this time a strongly worded one.

The three-member bench rebuked a federal institution (NBP) for failing to streamline the process and emphasised the importance of respecting Supreme Court decisions. Interestingly, the short order underscored the extraordinary powers of ‘contempt’ in cases of disobedience to a court decision. “To disregard or delay the implementation of such verdicts is to challenge the very framework of our legal system. Compliance with judicial decisions is not a matter of courtesy but a constitutional requirement that safeguards this balance,” the short order stated.

The maintenance of this delicate balance between chaos and hope rests on the shoulders of state institutions. The judiciary can only be expected to safeguard it if there is any balance left to safeguard. A first step towards preserving it could be respecting the court’s decisions and avoiding tampering with constitutional boundaries for momentary political gains. This may, for once, steer us away from chaos.

Malik Ahmed Hasan
The writer is a student of law at the Lahore University for Management Sciences (LUMS).