Judicial activism and the public interest

While hearing on Thursday a suo motu case of exorbitant fees charged by private medical colleges, Chief Justice Saqib Nisar iterated his resolve to continue acting in the public interest without paying heed to criticism. He, of course, was responding to detractors of increasing judicial activism, especially his inspection visit to Lahore's Mayo Hospital, and his declared intention to make similar visits to other government-run hospitals in Punjab as well as other provinces. The court has also been taking notice of several other public interest issues, including polluted water supply to households in Sindh and Punjab, poor state of public sector schools, and the accreditation by the Pakistan Dental and Medical Council of private medical colleges that function without a 500-bed teaching hospital - a mandatory requirement under the Council's rules.
Those criticizing the court contend its interventions constitute infringement on the domain of the executive branch and its auxiliary departments, and that it goes against the principle of trichotomy of power. But then the system of separation of powers also provides for checks and balances, so the executive does not assume too much power or ignores public good. The court draws validity for stepping into the executive's sphere from Article 184 (3) of the Constitution that states, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199 (pertaining to the jurisdiction of high courts) the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of the fundamental rights is involved, have the power to make an order. Healthcare and education are universally regarded as fundamental human rights, and are also the building blocks of social progress and economic development. Unfortunately, these rights figure nowhere in federal and provincial governments' priorities. In public hospitals of a relatively better administered Punjab's capital Lahore every patient has to share his bed with two other patients. In the city's main cardiology hospital, people have to wait for several months to be examined. And those living in the hinterlands in all the four provinces have to travel hundreds of miles to access medical facilities. The country's child and mortality rate is one of the highest in the world. In big cities, drinking water supplies are laced with all sorts of pollutants, with the result that waterborne diseases are common, and hepatitis has reached epidemic proportions. In many far-flung areas, people draw drinking and bathing water from stagnant ponds, sharing it with animals. The Constitution calls for free and compulsory education for all children between the ages of five and 16 years. And yet at present, as many as 20.5 million children are out of school.
The foregoing facts clearly show the executive has abdicated its responsibility towards the people. If the apex court, using its constitutional prerogative, is spotlighting these basic issues so as to bring about some improvement that should be welcomed rather than criticized. It also needs to be noted that judicial activism is not something new happening in this country. It is a well-established practice in various developing even in some developed countries - rare though in the later case for the obvious reason.