Lahore High Court's new Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif attracted much public attention and admiration last week when he politely turned down an offer to become acting governor in the absence of Governor Salmaan Taseer. That, he said, he was doing in deference "to the opinion of his brother judges"; and also because to hold the office of governor would be contrary to the principles of independence of judiciary.
The next day, ie, Saturday, he was participating in a two-day meeting of the National Judicial Committee in Islamabad where his colleague judges prescribed a fresh code of conduct for the judges of superior courts. Chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary, the committee decided that "in future no chief justice or a judge of superior court shall accept the appointment as acting governor of a province.
In the same way, they will not accept appointment to any other public office in federal/provincial government." In fact, as the committee pointed out, the Constitution clearly lays down such guidelines even for the former judges. The relevant provision says, "a former judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court should not hold the office of profit in the service of Pakistan."
The Constitution also forbids judges from holding judicial or quasi-judicial office of the Chief Election Commissioner or of a chairman or member of the Law Commission and the Council of Islamic Ideology within two years of retirement. The reasons are simple yet compelling. Governments can, and do, employ the lure of such post-retirement jobs to influence the outcome of important cases.
In our chequered political history, military dictators have often used such appointments to perpetuate their rule, causing grievous harm to the democratic process. Besides, as per the highest traditions of judicial independence, judges must not fraternize with politicians nor should they attend public events so as to ensure that their impartiality and integrity never becomes questionable.
It was in that spirit that the first Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mian Abdul Rashid, set a principled precedence, declining the then Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan's invitation to a banquet. Unfortunately, that example, and later even the constitutional provisions, were violated with impunity.
Many members of the judiciary would cozy up to government leaders, both military and civilian, to seek promotions, post-retirement appointments, or certain benefits and privileges in exchange for unsavoury compromises. On a lesser level, there is a direct contest between extra-judicial activities and duties. When judges are busy in things other than those they are responsible for, their work suffers.
It is partly the reason why the backlog of undecided or even unheard court cases in this country is too high. It, indeed, is heartening to see that the recent civil society movement for the rule of law has infused a new mood in members of our superior judiciary to act in line with the best traditions of judicial independence. The National Judicial Committee's recommendations though need to be incorporated in a more formal code of conduct, complete with a list of canons to be observed by all its members.