Some people are confused about the relationship between Executives and Judiciary. Obviously, many have different understanding about this relationship, but from my understanding Judiciary is a tool of executives (government) and should not start behaving as if they are boss. When such happens, country can go into spin and anarchy can cause emergency what happened in Pakistan.
I think that Judiciary was acting as enemy of state and was using constitution and the power they were given to harm the country and stop executives of the country to run the country effectively. I do not know the causes but it seems that ego of some judges became cause of this stupid behaviour of judges, and they deserved to get sack.
Running of a country is duty of executives. They are responsible of all wrongs and rights in the country. If justice is not given, if education is low, if laws are not properly enforced, if economy goes bad, if corruption increases, if inflation increases, if joblessness increases, if terrorism increases, if international relationship deteriorates, etc, than all blames goes to executives. On the other hand, similarly credit for all good in the country goes to executives.
Thus executives rule the country. Sole purpose of all institutions in the country, including Judiciary is to help executives to run the country in most appropriate and effective way. I believe that as long as executives are running the country with commitments and giving good governance, to hinder executives by any institution is treachery.
Relationship between executives and judiciary should be very close and full of trust. If relationship between Judiciary and executives shatters or mistrust starts, than judiciary has to go. Similarly, if Judiciary starts hindering executives from running the country effectively, than also judiciary has to go. [Normally, judiciary everywhere in the world does not do anything to shatter that relationship, or hinder executives from governance effectively, whoever is ruling the country]
It does not mean that individual in executive in their personal life for personal gain abuse power and judiciary supports that, but if executive uses power in any way (that may sometime could be unconstitutional) to rule the country effectively, judiciary has to help executive.
Example: Suppose executive considers A is terrorist and acts against A by interning A or even eliminating A, than judiciary should not become obstacle for executive by bringing constitutional right of A into question and making that an excuse to give A relief, as that would hinder executive to stop A from terrorism in the country. [Note: Here a particular executive is not acting against A for personal reasons, but if judiciary thinks that there is reason to believe that a particular person in executive is victimizing A because of personal reason than judiciary can act against that executive].
I personally believe that most people that Pakistan government was holding (had interned) on terrorist grounds were not due to any personal reason but government genuinely believed that these people are involved in terrorism or were linked to terrorists. Law enforcement agencies were acting together with government against these people (shows that it was not due to any personal enmity), and it was not some individuals in law enforcement agencies or government that were acting against such people for personal reasons (victimizing the person interned).
For instance, there was no personal enmity of anyone in government or law enforcement agency against Rashid of Lal-Mashid but it was his ‘breaking the law and creating unrest in Islamabad and spreading discomforting situation in Pakistan’ that caused government (and law enforcement agency) to act against him. In such case, judiciary cannot start looking at constitution to see what relief they can give to Rashid. But if judiciary starts giving relief to peoples like Rashid, it means judiciary is adversely affecting and interfering the running of the country, that to me is absolutely wrong and against the interest of the country.
Similarly, people that were interned by government whom Supreme Court got released by CJ actions, were not personal enemy of any person from law enforcement agency or government and thus their internment was to do with genuine believe by the government that these were terrorist or liked to terrorism. In such cases, Judiciary should not have interfered, but since they did, they did wrong and against the country.
Note: If any person interned was due to personal enmity than Judiciary could have acted (in such case, law enforcement agency together with government could not have got involved anyhow).