EDITORIAL: How interesting, and perhaps instructive, that a crucial round in the tug of war of supremacy between the executive and the judiciary went in favour of the latter just one day after the former ceased to be represented by PDM (Pakistan Democratic Movement).
Now it’s only natural that the unanimous decision of the CJP-led three-member bench that struck down the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023 as “repugnant and ultra vires to the constitution” is being met with multiple interpretations in the wider political theatre.
The court has made its position very clear, in a very strongly worded order, that the constitution does not allow it to be used as an appellate forum in reviewing its own judgements “in public interest”.
Simply put, an ordinary bill does not suffice to fiddle with its review jurisdiction. That leaves only one way, which is a constitutional amendment. But since all that, if at all, is well in the future, all eyes are now going to revert to the possible political implications of this verdict.
To most observers, especially those close to the opposition, this hasty piece of legislation always reeked of an attempt to facilitate the return of Nawaz Sharif and the like from political wilderness.
And they’re now convinced that this is the end of that particular story and the former three-time prime minister can, at best, continue to exercise whatever influence he can from the outside – like the recent past. But PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz) doesn’t seem worried at all.
The outgoing law minister explained that Nawaz’s position was secure enough due to amendments in the Elections Act, which limits disqualifications to five years. Still, there are plenty of grey areas, so time, and ultimately the courts, will decide.
It would be wrong to take this decision as yet more proof of a standoff between the government and the judiciary ever since “unconstitutional delays” in holding elections to KP (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and Punjab assemblies were challenged. And while it’s true that both arms of government have certainly given the impression of wanting to elbow the other out and even step into each other’s domain, it is far more important to read into the legal and constitutional implications of this verdict.
If and when parliament is strong and representative enough to make landmark changes in the constitution, and it still feels the need to widen the scope of review jurisdiction in cases decided under Article 184(3), then it is its democratic right, indeed duty, to do so.
But letting an unfortunate tussle between a patched-up government and a higher judiciary that sometimes leaves itself open to questions dictate sensitive legislation and judicial practice is no way to go about things.
Such things have gripped top institutions and snatched the headlines for far too long. Surely, the people and pillars of this state understand only too well that far bigger issues require their most urgent attention.
This country is on the brink of collapse, after all, with sharply deteriorating economic, social, educational and medical indicators. Yet its elite is far too busy fighting among itself, and between institutions, to give such things much thought, much less any attention.
Perhaps in the hurry to find interpretations most onlookers are overlooking the most important element of this verdict; that all institutions must properly understand and respect their own boundaries. And the executive should go about its own business and leave the judiciary to its; until it can do something about the constitution.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023