THE Dawn editorial, `SC`s welcome move` (June 4) makes no reference whatsoever to the fact that the Elections Act, 2017 drastically reduced the requirement for candidates to share with citizens specific data on vital aspects of their eligibility eg dual nationality, income tax number and payment record, educational qualification, other ethical indicators, etc.

Instead of joining the chorus of the custodians of democracy about a supposed plan to postpone elections, the editorial should have stressed the criticalneedfor relevant data about candidates being made public.

A revised nomination form could have been printed and distributed within a week. Adjustment of the election schedule by only two or three weeks will certainly not make a radical difference, nor result in the subversion of democracy.

The same constitution which requires polls to be held within 60 days of the dissolution of the previous legislatures also contains an article that allows for a reasonable flexibility in deadlines.

Media, including Dawn, should have studied the revised nomination form when the Elections Act, 2017, was enacted over six months ago and alerted the people about the success ofvested interestsin preventing access ofvoters to allthe relevantfacts about candidates.

The Supreme Court decision and its hasty endorsement sets back the process of ensuring integrity and competence in the elected representatives of the people.

Name withheld on request Karachi (2) IT is difficult to understand the Supreme Court verdict allowing the existing nomination form, recently amended by the parliament and with many important columns deleted, to be used by individuals submitting their nominations for election to the next parliament.

This verdict means that now all kinds of people can contest for parliamentary seats, from loan defaulters to holders of double nationality, murderers, rapists, law breakers, corrupt individuals, bribe mafia, and so forth.

If a decision were to be taken to amend the nomination form, at most the election schedule would be delayed by seven days.

Chief Justice Saqib Nisar has done so much for the country.

He could also leave behind a legacy of correcting a blatant anomaly of the last parliament by restoring the nomination form to its 2013 version at least.

It is also unclear that when the parliament stands dissolved, how can the last speaker describe himself as a`custodian` of the parliament and submit a petition to prevent changes in the current form? Syed Jawaid Iqbal Karachi