The Pakistani Supreme Court yesterday asked the country's military government to amend a controversial anti-corruption decree, partly meeting concerns of critics who had called the law draconian.

In what is being seen by many as a second blow to military ruler General Pervez Musharraf in as many weeks, the Supreme Court describing parts of his anti-corruption ordinance "repugnant", directed the federal government to amend within two months some of the provisions of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance, which it held were 'ultra vires' to the constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, softened its critique by saying that the NAB law in general was not discriminatory, and it did not hit the concept of provincial autonomy as claimed in some of the 15 petitions that challenged NAB law.

The five-justice bench disagreed with the NAB's methods of detaining an accused for a period of 90 days before remand. It noted this was against the law as it denied the accused the right to get a lawyer and be defended.

The court declared in no case should the remand of an accused be for more than 15 days at a time. It was also ordered that prolonged detention of an accused without sufficient cause was violative of personal liberties.

The court also ordered the government to amend the clauses of NAB Ordinance, which provided for the disqualification from contesting election or to hold public office for a period of 21 years as it was too excessive. The court directed the government to reduce the disqualification period to 10 years to be reckoned from the date the convict is released after serving his sentence.

The detailed judgement of the court was welcomed by political parties, most of whom were the petitioners against the NAB ordinance. "The bite is gone now," said Sheikh Akram, a senior lawyer who argued against the NAB law in the apex court. But the prosecutor general of the NAB said the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Ordinance.

"The judgement says that NAB ordinance has been promulgated in accordance with the constitution. There are some provisions of ordinance, which according to the court were in conflict of fundamental rights and some provisions of the constitution and these will be amended and brought in line with the constitution...."