Speaking in the House, some lawmakers even suggested that a new form of authoritarianism was raising its head through the judiciary, while others warned of a "people´s uprising" to defeat any such authoritarian streak. These childish remarks can´t just be laughed away, and need to be deplored in no uncertain terms.
The leaders and lawmakers seem to be taking advantage of the fact that SC justices cannot and will not engage them in public debate on the merits of their verdict, and so are making bold to advance nonsense arguments. Even Maoist lawmakers, who until recently had been arguing against the principle of separation of powers among the executive, judiciary and legislature and wanted the judiciary to be under the sway of a "sovereign parliament", were now to be seen citing the "principle of separation of powers" to argue that the SC cannot decide the CA´s tenure. But bear in mind that in the first place this is not a question of "separation of powers" or of the SC deciding the tenure of the CA.
The SC was just interpreting the constitution as it exists. Let´s consider the relevent constitutional provision. Article 64 of the Interim Constitution says: Unless dissolved earlier pursuant to a resolution passed by the CA, the term of the CA shall be two years after the date on which the first meeting of the CA is held. It further says that if the making of the constitution cannot be completed by the reason of the proclamation of a state of emergency in the country, the CA may extend its term for an additional period not exceeding six months.
Clearly, as per the constitution, all the past extensions of CA term were unconstitutional because any extension to be legitimate necessitated the existence of a state of emergency. The apex court nevertheless went in for political considerations and upheld the past extensions, invoking the doctrine of necessity. And the political parties wasted each of these extensions, taking it for granted that another extension would surely be on its way. In a true democracy, parliament or the CA cannot extend its own life by itself, without seeking a fresh mandate from the people.
The CA extending its own term is, therefore, a breach of the mandate obtained through elections and a betrayal of the people´s trust. When lawmakers shamelessly and repeatedly extended their tenure, the apex court finally said enough was enough and ruled that the tenure could be extended just for one last time, and for not more than six months. In so doing, the SC did not encroach on the juridisction of parliament or the CA, but only reminded lawmakers of a provision in the constitution that they themselves had endorsed.
We also have genunine doubts that the CA members will be completing the constitution in the next six months had the SC verdict not come about. We, therefore, wish to tell the political leaders and lawmakers to stop talking nonsense and focus on drafting the constitution within six months.
Related story
Rouhani says 'childish' of U.S. to sanction Iran foreign minist...
