Aliran is distressed that an election petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petition was improperly filed.

The election petition became a nullity in the opinion of the court because the petitioner "had failed to hand in two copies of the petition to the court for retention." This, it appears, had resulted in the third respondent in the suit not being served the petition as required by law.

This terrible turn of events raises the all-important question of what justice is about and how it should be served.

Must justice depend solely upon technicalities and bureaucracy before it can be addressed? Should failure to observe certain formalities ultimately result in the denial of justice?

What about the issue of justice itself when a grievous wrong has been committed? Should a litigant who is a victim of gross injustice be denied his just dues simply because his lawyer had inadvertently failed to observe certain bureaucratic requirements?

Doesn't the court have its inherent right to rectify a technical shortcoming? Was the technical violation in this instance so fatal to the suit that it could not be rectified without sacrificing justice?

Thinking Malaysians would want to know whether it is within the powers of the court to postpone the suit, order the petitioner to submit the additional copy of the petition to the court registry, and fix a new date for hearing the petition.

Wouldn't this course of action have been more in keeping with the inviolable principles of natural justice, which is sacrosanct to all our spiritual traditions? Surely this would not have given the litigant the feeling that the rug was being pulled from under his feet. It would have enhanced the prestige of the court and instilled confidence in our system of justice.