IT was inevitable, given the way both sides had been digging in their heels. A sitting prime minister has been charged with contempt of court, effectively pitting the people’s court against the judiciary. Each has clearly been trying to avoid the perception that it is targeting the other, with the Supreme Court allowing more time between hearings than expected — including the two weeks it has now granted, which should also suppress rumours about attempts to delay Senate elections — and the PM and his counsel making the right noises about respecting the judiciary and the rule of law. But this relative civility could not have averted the impasse they have reached by sticking to their guns. With political considerations appearing to trump legal reasoning, the government has clearly made up its mind to ignore the argument, made by many in the legal community, that it can maintain its position on the president’s immunity and still write the letter, which would not necessarily lead to the reopening of cases against him. In the other corner is an apex court determined to assert its authority.
Why it is set on doing so at this particular time, after two years of the NRO case lying dormant, is unclear. What is apparent is that the SC is no longer willing to suffer defiance on this issue, even if that means convicting a head of government.

What next? If either party backs down after such dogged resistance it will risk the perception that it pointlessly dragged the country through another political drama. But given the upheaval that could result from the PM’s conviction, that risk is worth it. It will be difficult for the SC to call into question its December 2009 NRO judgment by letting the PM off the hook. But in view of the timing and sensitivities, it could consider a lengthy adjournment, something it could also have done before this point was reached. And the government can still write the letter and put the issue to bed, at least for the time being.

Either option could create the opportunity for a smoother transition to early or on-schedule general elections, allowing an elected government to complete a full term, or seek a new mandate, with its chief executive intact. The conviction of a sitting PM is not a simple matter of appointing a new one. It will weaken democratic institutions in a country where these finally have the chance to demonstrate staying power. And it would be a shame to lose that opportunity over a letter that at the end of the day might not mean very much at all.