As expected, the Supreme Court (SC) has rejected the review petition that was filed by the government against the court’s July 31, 2009 order declaring the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) void ab initio. This raises the question of whether NRO-related cases, including the money laundering cases allegedly pending in Switzerland against the president and others, will be reopened. And is presidential immunity, under article 248, also on the line? These questions are difficult to answer, considering the far-reaching impact of the court’s ruling on the future course of judiciary-executive relations and the fate of the current political dispensation. Indeed, the very promulgation of the NRO was motivated by myopia and malice. It was an instrument to protect a set of politicians and bureaucrats from prosecution in thousands of cases involving corruption, murder, abduction, extortion and so on. A discredited ruler, General Musharraf, needed it to save his regime from floundering. But it caused distortion in the legal system, strained executive-judiciary relations and brought the president, a beneficiary of the NRO, into the crosshairs of judicial activism. Moreover, the timing of the NRO’s promulgation was no less fateful. On the one hand, a new block of socio-political power consisting of lawyers and civil society had risen on the back of a powerful movement for the restoration of the deposed judges and the independence of the judiciary. On the other, a newly elected coalition government came to power backed by a popular mandate, the emotional appeal of Benazir Bhutto’s tragic assassination and the feel-good effect of the charter of democracy that had the signatures of most of the newly formed coalition government’s stalwarts. Those were, thus, defining times for the country. But soon things began to go awry. The main coalition partners, the PPP and PML-N, soon fell out, causing a split though not a final breakup. More ominously, judges were finally restored but only when the army chief had allegedly interceded to forestall a ‘crisis’ precipitated by an Islamabad-bound long march led by the PPP’s estranged ‘partner’ Nawaz Sharif. At the end of the day, a three-framed picture emerged on the national canvas, depicting an epic struggle among the executive, judiciary and establishment, with the PML-N standing close to the judiciary and the US pulling strings from behind the curtains, more for the civilians and less for the establishment. Since then the original contours of the picture have remained the same, but new images and menacing shades have been added to the canvas. The death of the NRO at the hands of the SC may further add to the morbidity of the image. The PPP-led coalition partners may not easily allow a hatchet job to be done on them in the name of constitutionalism. The telltale signs are there already. It has reportedly been ‘decided’ in the first meeting that was held at the presidency after the dismissal of the review petition by the SC that the NRO-related cases would not be reopened. Obviously, the government will project itself as the ‘victim’ of judicial activism, pressing into service many an example. It will be alleged that the judiciary is relentlessly ‘trespassing’ on the executive’s authority, that the court is ‘silent’ on article 248, which gives immunity to the president from civil and criminal prosecution and that the court is conveniently ignoring other equally significant petitions filed against generals and other political leaders. Questions will also be raised regarding the selection and elevation of the higher judiciary. The ‘concern’ shown by the newly elected president of the Supreme Court Bar Association over the selective ‘picking’ of judges will also be pointed out. It will also be mentioned that out of the 40 benches in the Sindh High Court, as many as 25 are lying vacant allegedly due to the lame excuse that there is a dearth of competent lawyers in rural Sindh whose ‘quota’ has been consistently and flagrantly violated in the name of merit. Finally, the government will also marshal the ‘external’ factor, benefiting from the establishment’s deepening ‘tiff’ with the US and the latter’s support for the civilian setup as a countervailing force to the former. True, the US-civilian equation has lately come under grievous strain by ISAF’s ‘unprovoked’ killing of Pakistani soldiers in Mohmand Agency. As a result, the civil and military leaderships have closed ranks against NATO and the US, shutting down NATO supplies to Afghanistan and putting Shamsi base on notice of closure. But then the security situation would make it all the more difficult for the court to pit itself against the executive. The court also understands that derailing the current democratic system would imperil its own independent existence. Therefore, it would be reluctant to use its power under article 190 to call in the armed forces, among others, in its ‘aid’ against a defiant government. Granted, the court did what it should have done by upholding constitutionalism. Its ruling to do away with the NRO, a discriminatory law, is praiseworthy. But it needs to also do what it wants the ‘inept’ and ‘corrupt’ executive to do, i.e. cleanse its stables and deliver. There is a lot of room for improvement in the judicial system to make it an efficient, cheap and fast vehicle of justice. Winning institutional battles will not strengthen it; winning the hearts and minds of the people, those who strove for its restoration and independence, would ensure its writ and respectability. And that can be achieved by cleansing the judiciary, particularly the lower one, of inefficiency, red tape and corruption. More than 1.5 million cases are pending in the courts. In cahoots with an incompetent police, the lower judiciary in particular has utterly failed to render justice to the wronged masses. Due to the failure of the criminal justice system, the common man’s life, property and respect are eternally hedged to the discretion of powerful criminals and conmen. The hordes of land grabbing and criminal mafias are governing urban and rural life with impunity. Yet, much of the flak is reserved for the government. The judiciary takes no blame for the slack rule of law. Unsurprisingly, on the 1-181 scale of the World Bank’s Business Index 2011, Pakistan stands at 154 as regards the enforcement of contract. This raises the question: who will come to invest in this country where commercial disputes are resolved in years and decades? Small wonder then that even local industrialists are relocating to other countries, even to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, mainly due to the lack of protection to life and property. In democracy, just as the survival and legacy of an executive hinges on its performance, the writ and independence of a judiciary also depends on its delivery. Remember, a delinquent executive and a discredited judiciary meet the same fate. People turn their backs upon them, making them fair game for the ‘third force’. The writer is a lawyer and academic. He can be reached at shahabusto@hotmail.com