There being a lot of similarities in the judicial systems of the SAARC countries, the joint declaration issued at the end of the SAARC chief justices conference in Karachi on Sunday expressed the resolve to address many of the common issues.
These include the need "to strengthen the rule of law and recognition of merit in our countries," to make concerted and collective efforts "to exterminate, root and branch, the chronic malady of delay in the disposal of cases," to evolve mechanisms that ensure positive co-operation and support of the Bar in regulating hearings and accelerating the process of administration of justice, and to ensure selection of competent and independent judges. These, of course, are all laudable objectives.
As the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Unfortunately, delay in the administration of justice is a chronic problem in this country.
There is a huge backlog of cases pending in the lower as well as higher courts. This is so not only because there are not enough judges, but also because many of the incumbents happen to be incompetent.
The SAARC CJ's made two important proposals to deal with this problem. One, they recommended establishment of judicial academies, or strengthening the existing ones, in order to improve the professional competence of the judges.
Two, and even more important suggestion, to bring about amendments in the judicial service rules to make induction level training necessary for such duration as may be suitable to the jurisdictions concerned, and to link promotions with successful competition of in-service training.
So far as the goals of strengthening the rule of law and recognition of merit in this country are concerned, our judiciary has a rather unenviable track record.
True, successive governments have tried to pack the superior judiciary with their favourites, in most cases at the cost of merit.
But it is also true that whenever confronted with a choice to defy the powers that be or comply with their wishes, the judges invariably have happily made a compromise to choose the latter option.
That, unsurprisingly, has resulted in the erosion of public confidence in the higher judiciary.
A recent example has been the issue of extension, as per the controversial LFO, in the judges' superannuation age in contravention of the relevant provision of the original Constitution.
Those who preferred to benefit from that provision rather than to uphold the Constitution did not do any good to the image of the judiciary, which is already blurred due to the various controversial decisions it delivered at crucial points in this country's turbulent history.
The judiciary, needless to say, is the guarantor of the rule of law. It must, therefore, protect the rights of the weak against the strong and deliver justice while adjudicating disputes between citizens, between the citizens and the state or between different branches of the state.
In fact, in developing countries such as ours, it must also take suo motu notice of cases where a group is too weak or ignorant of its rights to pursue justice.
Judicial activism, in fact, is the need of the hour in the country. It is good to see members of our superior courts participating in the drafting of the Karachi declaration that promises to provide "effective judicial support to the efforts aimed at curbing malpractices, malfeasance, corruption, favouritism, and discrimination in any form." One can only hope this resolve will be translated into action.