WHEN Imran Khan was the prime minister he tried to stop the vote of no confidence against him through a ruling by the deputy Speaker of the National Assembly. The Supreme Court took suo motu notice. The PML-N and PPP-P also petitioned the Supreme Court. The court set aside a ruling of the deputy Speaker and also declared unlawful Imran Khan’s attempt to dissolve the National Assembly. All of this was done through a short order.

The short order of the court gave detailed directions to the Speaker regarding the holding of the vote of no-confidence. It was criticised at the time by supporters of the PTI as being a case of judicial overreach. How could the court direct an independent constitutional organ like the legislature regarding the manner in which it was to undertake its internal affairs? Ultimately, the short order was implemented. The detailed reasons came much later. Mr Imran Khan was removed. We went back to Purana Pakistan.

The five-member bench of the court that gave this decision was headed by chief justice Umar Ata Bandial. It also comprised justices Ijazul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar. The decision by a bench which included these three judges paved the way for the removal of the PTI government and for the PDM to take charge. They were hailed by supporters of the PDM and by others as heroes for upholding the Constitution.

For these same supporters, the judicial heroes later became villains. This reflects an unfortunate tendency amongst litigants in our legal landscape. When a judge or court endorses their perspective, they are hailed as........

© Dawn