There as been alot of commentary on this topic, and I would just like to present the possibilities as I see them:
PPP argues that the status quo be maintained, assemblies restored, and voting on the NCM take place.
PTI contends that:
The court cannot hear cases regarding this issue due to Article 69. There is some merit to this argument, as the SC returned a petition one day ago on the exact same grounds. But, there is a debate even within the lawyers whether this article applies in totality or not. Some contend this is a conditional clause. It only applies to procedural faults, not constitutional.
So the first order is that the court has to decide whether it can do something in this case or not.
So, let's say the court decides that it will interfere in this matter and Article 69 does not apply in this case. Then would the assemblies be restored? No. Right now the court has only decided to look at the merits of the Speaker's decision, hasn't decided on the decision itself.
Now comes the speakers judgement, which is a detailed judgement. There are merits and dismerits to it. To decide upon that, the court would need to see bone of contention, the famed letter. And that is where the water muddies. If that letter comes to the SC, then the MoD, MoFA, and other stakeholders would be asked to give their input, and the court would in effect have to decide whether the political parties or a select few of their leaders were indeed part of a foreign conspiracy or plan? This is a HUGE question, and a HUGE responsibility on the shoulders of the court. The letter would come out in public, be shared with the opposition lawyers, and so on.
If it agrees with the speaker on the ruling, then it effectively does say that there was a foreign element to the whole move, and this would be far far damaging to the opposition. The SC basically has said you are colluding with a foreign power.
Does the SC want to take that burden? I believe not.
Furthermore, how can it be that you can break the law in one case but that is alright, but in another it becomes totally wrong? Banday chori kar lo, paisay kharcho, entice karo, that's alright, but the other thing is not?
You cannot bring a knife to a karate fight, but then complain when the other guy brings out a gun. Once you brought out a knife, you've left the door open for all sorts of thuggery.
IMO, the court should also immediately decide the status of the presidential reference regarding the turncoats. The opposition only managed to woo MQM and other parties after it showed them the presence of the PTI MNA's in it's ranks. Had the SC decided on that issue before, we wouldn't be here.
In a nutshell, the SC would not want to involve itself in this political mess, and give out a certificate on foreign interference, that is why it will take the easy way out as always and take support of Article 69.
.
