Doctrine of necessity has often been hailed as the last bastion for those in power seeking to justify actions that contravene established laws especially when faced with crises. assertion that this doctrine lies “dead and buried” can reverberate through political corridors, especially in countries with fragile democratic institutions like Pakistan. In the hands of the incumbent regime, this doctrine, which was once purportedly a remedy for governance in tumultuous times, has merely resurfaced in an insidious form.
It is increasingly evident that the current government is systematically overstepping judicial authority under the guise of ‘necessary’ reforms aimed at judicial improvement. This rhetoric has hollowed out the spirit of constitutional democracy, morphing what might initially have appeared as benign legislative adjustments into a brazen assault on the fundamental structure of governance. The ruling regime persists in its confrontations with the judiciary, particularly over the contentious issue of reserved seats, even when common sense suggests that such confrontations are illogical given their political dominance.
The government’s insistence on demanding a two-thirds majority raises eyebrows. Why such an obstinate pursuit for seats linked to opposition parties? After all, the administration enjoys a comfortable majority that should ideally provide ample breathing room in legislative maneuvers. This paradox points to deeper motivations a desire to establish unchallenged control over the legislative agenda and fortify an increasingly tenuous grip on power. The political climate suggests that relinquishing a few seats to the opposition is simply non-negotiable, and the regime would rather risk potential charges of contempt than cede even an inch.
What transpired over the last weekend sheds light on the intentions fueling this conflict. The current administration appears hell-bent on establishing a new constitutional court that could potentially usurp vital functions from the judiciary. Observations indicate a fundamental shift in how this government views its judiciary as a barrier to be dismantled rather than an institution to collaborate with. The full bench of the Supreme Court, which contradicted the government’s stance on the reserved seats, seems to have lit a match that the administration is now desperately attempting to extinguish.
Historically, disobedience towards the judiciary was a rare and often politically costly occurrence. The Supreme Court’s past actions, including the conviction of a sitting Prime Minister for contempt, set a precedent of obedience, even when its orders were perceived as heavy-handed. Fast forward to last year, and we see a chilling departure from this norm, as the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement government appears to have colluded with the Election Commission of Pakistan to undermine the Supreme Court’s directive on overdue elections, epitomizing a troubling trend where judicial interpretation is routinely scorned.
The core lesson drawn from these events lies in the reminder that parliamentary sovereignty, while vital, is not a license to undermine judicial independence. Both entities must exercise their powers within established constitutional frameworks for democratic governance to thrive. For a nation that has weathered significant political storms, the price of lost integrity in its institutions is too steep; one that can have lasting implications for democracy itself.