Even for a country where political turbulence is the norm, the suspension of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry by a presidential reference came with stunning suddenness.
According to a press release issued by the President House on Friday afternoon, he was "called by the President and the Prime Minister and confronted with the allegations in answer to which he could not give any satisfactory reply. Consequently, the President and the Prime Minister were constrained to refer the matter to the Supreme Judicial Council as provided in the Constitution". Mr Justice Javed Iqbal, the next senior most "available" Judge of the Supreme Court, has been appointed as Acting Chief Justice, as required under the Constitution, the press release added.
Within a short time of the suspension of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Javed Iqbal was sworn in as the new chief. The Supreme Judicial Council met the same evening to receive the reference made to it by the President, and decided to invite Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to appear before it on March 13 at 1.30 pm. The Council also ordered that "the respondent shall not perform functions as Judge of the Supreme Court till the above reference is answered by the Council".
Under Article 209 of the Constitution, "If, on information (from any source) the Council or the President is of the opinion that a judge of the Supreme Court...may have been guilty of misconduct, the President shall direct the Council, or the Council may on its own motion, to inquire into the matter"... "If, after inquiring into the matter, the Council reports to the President that it is of the opinion...that he should be removed from office the President may remove the Judge from office... A Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court shall not be removed except as provided by this Article.
Will Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry contest the allegations, which are believed to be the contents of a letter written by a lawyer, or step down without putting up a fight is a moot point before the people from all walks of life.
Quite a few say that he should quietly resign and go home, arguing that the Supreme Judicial Council is essentially not a penalising court but a sort of watchdog entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the working of the superior judiciary so that it enjoys the confidence of the people. Others are of the view that Justice Chaudhry should stand up and defend his case, as resigning from office before the inquiry would amount to admitting the allegations.
The history of Pakistan's superior judiciary is quite unenviable. In the name of 'doctrine of necessity' the apex court legitimised successive illegal military take-overs. But there can also be no denying the fact that superior judiciary has often been subordinated not by military juntas alone but by the civilian rulers as well, earning Pakistan the unique ignominy of being a country where the government-assisted goons were allowed to attack the Supreme Court.
In this year of general election, when a number of constitutional petitions coming to the apex court cannot be ruled out, the hearing of the reference against Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and its aftermath is expected to arouse great public interest. Going by the media coverage of the episode one may dare predict that this case is going to spawn a political drama of cataclysmic proportions. One would, therefore, say that it would be in the fitness of things that the hearing by the Supreme Judicial Council should be open to public so that, as the maxim goes, justice should not only be done but also be seen to have been done.