To each their own turf
When sharp differences between two respectable bodies – one comprising serving judges and the other retired ones – come out into the open, the common man wonders what is happening. Interestingly, there is no difference between the two on the core issue that the existing electoral rolls need to be corrected in order to hold just and fair elections. The dispute centres around the time needed to complete the job satisfactorily.
There is a widespread perception that while undertaking political engineering, Musharraf’s henchmen included millions of fake voters to get his candidates elected. The perception was supported by the facts that NADRA subsequently presented. As many as 37,185,998 entries were found to be fake. The SC ordered the ECP and NDRA to do the required corrections. So far so good. But then the apex court took upon itself to determine the time frame within which the task had to be carried out which was by February 23. One wonders why the court deemed it fit to do so when the matter falls into the category of practicality rather than constitutionality. A better way would have been to let the ECP and NADRA determine the time needed in the light of the number of trained personnel at their disposal. What the SC should have ensured is that the list was in place well before the elections due early next year. Both NADRA and ECP maintained that the preparation of error free electoral rolls would not be possible before May 25. A new dispute has now arisen between the SC and the ECP regarding the holding of by-elections in seven constituencies which the ECP claims is required by the constitution to be held by February 20. The elections on these seats have to be conducted therefore on the basis of the already-existing votes list.
The SC should not be seen to be invading the turf of other institutions, a complaint that has been frequently made by the executive and now by the ECP. Similarly, it should not be seen to be rewriting the constitution in the name of interpreting it. Again, the court would do well to restrain itself and enunciate the requirements of law without issuing the cut off dates. Otherwise, it is bound to face embarrassment as happened when appointing a chief enquiry officer to probe the memo case within a specified time frame.