SDPI discussion: setting up of constitutional courts proposed

The civil society in the federal capital is stirred up to see democracy really working in all national spheres. This was the consensus of a discussion held on Monday at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute.
The theme was "Independence of judiciary, the rule of law from the perspective of civil society." One recommendation adopted at the meeting asked for establishment of constitutional courts, while another called for review of the Constitution. The meeting noted the Constitution document must be straightened out to remove ambiguities and kinks that often gave rise to misinterpretation of the basic law.
The meeting also took a stand that 'political cases should never be filed at the Supreme Court.' Another resolution adopted at the meeting asked for setting up of constitutional courts to decide cases of political nature, on the assumption that political cases should not be brought before the Supreme Court. Zafarullah Khan of the Centre for civic education moved the resolution that was adopted at the meeting.
Barrister Zafarullah Khan, one of the parties, who has moved a case on the present Chief Justice's crisis at the Supreme Court, also counselled separation of powers. He said it is the function of courts to place an object in its proper perspective and any deviation from this course would perpetrate injustice.
He said according to Article 209 of the Constitution no judge could be removed without referring the matter to the Supreme Judicial Council and without enquiry.
In this regard, he narrated the example of an English Justice who could not decide a case because he had some stock shares in the instance case. He also narrated the example of a Qazi appointed by Caliph Haroon Rashid, who received a complaint received from a Jew and decided it against the Caliph. He even alleged that there were complaints pending against some members of the judicial review council.
He also called for hearing before appointment of judges. Social activist Harris Khalique quoted the example of a number of judges who had refused to take oath in indifferent circumstances. The Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was the only one who had taken oath under the new dispensation but had taken a stand against subordination of judiciary.
Haris Khalique pointed out that the matter was basically connected with the environment, in which the lower judiciary worked, aligning itself with political party and the military caucus. 'The resistance of lawyers should be seen as an awakening in the civil society, and this should be celebrated.'
In the opinion of Naeem Mirza, head of Consumer Trust, the sordid incident to which we were witness was a reflection of the society's disconnect from history. But since a defining moment had now been reached, we must strive for uplifting public institutions from the present state of decadence and restore independence to them.