Re: The Reference & The Judgement; Unanswered Questions
The opinion of the people.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/24/letted.htm#1
Judicial activation
THE judiciary, the media and a majority of the public is rejoicing over the triumph of the chief justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, in obtaining justice. Indeed it’s a historical moment in the 60 turbulent years of Pakistan, as never before has the nation witnessed such a judicial activation and solidarity among all the segments of the judiciary. The nearly four-month-long mass movement led by the chief justice had indeed taken a great leap towards strengthening this important pillar of power. This is bound to effect the creation of an essential balance of power between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, necessary for establishing a true democratic society based on social justice. **But the manner in which this movement was conducted has also aroused some legitimate concerns:
Why did the chief justice deem it essential to initiate a mass movement in favour of his rightful stand rather than confining it to the court room? Didn’t he have faith in his own team of judges or was he contemplating a different fate? Would the chief justice like to advise the common man to use the same recipe and utilise street power to obtain justice, without harbouring any fear of being caught behind bars for contempt of court?**
Or would he like to bring about revolutionary changes in the working of this esteemed institution so that no pressure of any kind would be able to impede the delivery of justice to even the weakest person in this country? This great movement became instrumental in infusing new life into an otherwise flaccid body of the opposition. Workers of different political parties freely participated in the processions led by the chief justice and were even allowed to bring their party flags and deliver speeches in his favour at reception camps arranged by the bar councils at different parts of the country. Thus there seemed to be a deliberate attempt to make an otherwise purely judicial issue into a political issue. Should this methodology be allowed to be adopted by others to obtain justice? Rendering allout support to the movement by the leaders of the major political parties belonging to the opposition camp must have made a soft corner in the heart of the chief justice, while names of the leaders belonging to the ruling alliance must have been written with permanent ink in his ‘bad book’. Now after being reinstated, would he be able to maintain his impartiality and not allow any biases to influence his performance while dealing with any of the above? The membership of a few imminent lawyers was struck out from the bar’s register since they dared to express their support to the presidential reference. Doesn’t a free democratic society have the right to make independent choices and opinions? Was taking such a punitive action, while the proceedings were still going on, not one way of influencing the court to get the desirable results? Addressing these concerns is important not only in order to keep the momentum in the right direction but to also prevent masters from becoming monsters and saviours turning into exploiters in future. It is not only in the best interest of the public but also for the judiciary itself to address these concerns in the best possible manner, as the means to reach the end is as important as the end itself.
DR M. WASIM MIRZA
Jhelum