Legal Literacy - This article discusses the problems of the Central Jakarta District Court's decision to grant the lawsuit of a political party that felt aggrieved because it was declared Ineligible (TMS) and could not participate in factual verification by the KPU. The decision sparked controversy in the public sphere because one of the points in the subject matter stated that it punished the defendant for not carrying out the remaining stages of the 2024 General Election since the court's decision was pronounced and carrying out the election stages from the beginning for approximately 2 years, 4 months, and 7 days.

When all elements of the election organizing committee on the front lines had begun to rush from village to village and door to door to match voter data, the gavel from the courtroom of the Central Jakarta District Court echoed, making everyone disbelieve. This disbelief began after the Prima party's lawsuit against the General Election Commission, which felt aggrieved because it was declared Ineligible (TMS) and could not participate in factual verification by the KPU, was granted by the panel of judges at that time.

The decision sparked controversy in the public sphere when one of the points in the subject matter stated that it punished the defendant for not carrying out the remaining stages of the 2024 General Election since the court's decision was pronounced and carrying out the election stages from the beginning for approximately 2 years, 4 months, and 7 days. Even from that point alone, it is clear that efforts to postpone the election still exist without considering the side effects that will automatically extend the term of office of both the President and the DPR.

After almost a year, the issue disappeared from the media's television screens, the old cassette regarding the discourse on postponing the election was replayed and hummed. The process of taking over the role carried out by the judiciary in its decision seems to be showing the old character of the mouthpiece of power and the political party elites who were the main actors in echoing the controversial issue some time ago.

If such issues arise from political party elites, of course, we can at least guess and predict the motive of interest behind it, namely power alone. Meanwhile, in this case, the polemic arises precisely from the judiciary at the first level, which is in principle independent from all kinds of political interest interventions.