EDITORIAL: The issues that politicians need to resolve between themselves frequently end up in the Supreme Court, with the losing side crying foul. Judgements, of course, are open to criticism, but not sitting judges.
The PDM (Pakistan Democratic Movement) coalition government leaders have kept haranguing the august court since a three-member bench led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial overturned the Punjab Assembly deputy speaker’s controversial ruling in chief minister’s election as null and void, declaring the opposition parties’ candidate Pervaiz Elahi as the duly elected chief minister for bagging 186 votes against his rival Hamza Shehbaz’s 179. They had started berating the court earlier after their plea to form a full court bench was rejected, though they were jubilant when a five-member bench — including the three honourable judges who heard the present case — declared unlawful and of no legal consequence the then National Assembly deputy speaker’s contentious ruling, paving the way for the PDM to form government at the Centre, which also encouraged them to try and install Hamza as the chief minister in Punjab.
Fretting over the setback in Wednesday’s session of the National Assembly, PDM parties’ leaders, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari launched tirades against the judiciary over Tuesday’s verdict. A resolution was also adopted calling for setting up of a parliamentary committee to carry out judicial reforms in order to “protect” the powers of parliament.
Apart from an unpleasant no-holds-barred criticism emanating from the present government, some of the points being raised seem to have merit, such as the chief justices’ role as the ‘Master of the Rolls’ to form benches and assign cases to them as well as their prerogative to take suo motu notices. After all, incumbents of that highest judicial office are human beings who may or may not have their own biases in allocating cases to other judges — a discretionary power which has a profound impact on not just the parties to a conflict but on society at large.
Suo motu notices have often times led to trespass into the executive domain in blatant violation of the separation of powers principle. The then chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, for instance, besides deciding to fix the price of sugar, struck down privatisation of the Steel Mills at a huge cost to the country. His verdict in the Reko Diq case also cost dearly when the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes slapped a hefty $ 5.976 billion fine on Pakistan. Another former CJ, Saqib Nisar, is better known for taking suo motu notices rather than delivering justice in his own remit.
We need to benefit from the best practices in other democracies where the chief judges perform administrative functions not as a sole prerogative but in consultation with senior most judges as a committee of judges for formation of benches, assignment of cases as well as if and when a suo motu notice is in order.
Political parties and their leaders must stop undermining the dignity of the apex court, and wait for the right moment for the initiation of reform effort, which can achieve success through a consultation process involving all stakeholders: Parliament, Bar and Bench.
Another aspect that threatens to undermine the dignity of the apex court and has all the portents of becoming a cause of embarrassment is the perceived division within the court itself on matters of administration as regards the criteria for elevation of judges to the apex court and the controversy surrounding the record of proceedings of the recently held meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). It is therefore advisable in the interest of the image and prestige of the apex judicial forum of the country that the chief justice address on priority the discontent and disorder that appears to be afflicting this august institution.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022