In the latest chain of events in which the Supreme Court has featured promiently, the Court has issued a notice of contempt to PTI chief Imran Khan and summoned him on 2nd August. The contempt is on the remarks of Imran Khan in which he had hurled accusations not just at the apex court but the Election Commission as well. The Chief Election has sent his resignation today, but the Supreme Court has reacted differently. It has decided to take the bull by the horn. The Supreme Court which was restored after long and valiant struggle by lawyers, political leaders, workers and other sections of civil society, is currently in the eye of the storm.
Those who had once cherished it for its independence and undiluted stance on justice and law are now its most ardent critics. And with the passage of time, the number of its distracters is increasing and their rhetoric against is hardening.
The cause of the recent spat of criticism is the Supreme Courts order to shift the date of presidential polls from August 6, to July 30. However, more than the decision to change the date has been the manner in which the SC reached it. PML-N's Raja Zafar ul Haq filed a plea in the apex court for the change of date, as the Election Commission after once announcing the date refused to change it and said it will change the date only on orders from the Supreme Court.
While hearing the plea, the Supreme Court ignored the other stakeholders in the presidential race and did not summon either the other presidential candidates or their parties and get their point of view. Basically, everybody agrees that the omission of the due process of law was not just unexpected from this the court but grave as well. They argue that when such omissions take place in the lower judiciary, the decisions are overturned by the higher courts. However this is not the only gripe that the critics have: There is a list of cases in which it has been complained that justice was either delayed or denied, which to some, amounts to the same thing. There also is the complaint regarding the preference of the order of hearing of cases by the Court. Some cases are, it is said, are heard on day to day bases; in other cases, hearings are in fits and starts. The initial hearings of certain cases are in quick succession, and then these cases are put on the back burner.
There also have been objections to the way the Court has reacted to reports of corruption in certain newspapers by converting the reports into pleas and foundations for suo motto actions. The PPP government was involved in a four-year tussle with the apex court and has been accusing it of interfering in the jurisdiction of the Parliament and the executive branch of the government. Also the way, this Court made the highest-level bureaucrats run around to bring relevant papers or to take orders from their political bosses within hours, in some instances even an hour, has been considered as very inappropriate by many. The PPP complains that the Court has been targeting its leaders and government. Imran Khan, who for long had supported the justices of the highest court of the land, has a gripe of his own. He complained that the High judiciary and the Election Commission had joined to hold the most rigged elections in the country's history. He had also complained that the court was dragging its feet on giving decision on his party's petition to hold a recount of four constituency by checking the thumbprints of the voters.
Top lawyers and leaders in the movement for restoration of the original judiciary like Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd and retired Justice ® Mahmud have been critical from time to time. Of course, Aitzaz lost his cool when he appeared as lawyer for the then prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani but couldn't convince the judges; Kurd had called the justice, to put it lightly, arrogant; Justice Tariq's criticism has been mostly critical on technical grounds but more often than not.
But the most potent of all the accusation is the one in which most accusers join in unison and say that the Court is partial in favour of PML-N. What is worrisome is that while most of the above maybe accused of have an axe to grind, there are lawyers, intellectuals and leaders of civil society who have voiced similar views. Without going into the merits and demerits of the accusations it would be appropriate to say that in the interest of judiciary, justice and the country, the Supreme Court has to turn around the negative impressions. It has to ponder and find ways to make sure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Pakistan: SC in the eye of the storm
In the latest chain of events in which the Supreme Court has featured promiently, the Court has issued a notice of contempt to PTI chief Imran Khan and summoned him on 2nd August. The contempt is on the remarks of Imran Khan in which he had hurled accusations not just at the apex court but the Election Commission as well. The Chief Election has sent his resignation today, but the Supreme Court has reacted differently. It has decided to take the bull by the horn. The Supreme Court which was restored after long and valiant struggle by lawyers, political leaders, workers and other sections of civil society, is currently in the eye of the storm.
Those who had once cherished it for its independence and undiluted stance on justice and law are now its most ardent critics. And with the passage of time, the number of its distracters is increasing and their rhetoric against is hardening.
The cause of the recent spat of criticism is the Supreme Courts order to shift the date of presidential polls from August 6, to July 30. However, more than the decision to change the date has been the manner in which the SC reached it. PML-N's Raja Zafar ul Haq filed a plea in the apex court for the change of date, as the Election Commission after once announcing the date refused to change it and said it will change the date only on orders from the Supreme Court.
While hearing the plea, the Supreme Court ignored the other stakeholders in the presidential race and did not summon either the other presidential candidates or their parties and get their point of view. Basically, everybody agrees that the omission of the due process of law was not just unexpected from this the court but grave as well. They argue that when such omissions take place in the lower judiciary, the decisions are overturned by the higher courts. However this is not the only gripe that the critics have: There is a list of cases in which it has been complained that justice was either delayed or denied, which to some, amounts to the same thing. There also is the complaint regarding the preference of the order of hearing of cases by the Court. Some cases are, it is said, are heard on day to day bases; in other cases, hearings are in fits and starts. The initial hearings of certain cases are in quick succession, and then these cases are put on the back burner.
There also have been objections to the way the Court has reacted to reports of corruption in certain newspapers by converting the reports into pleas and foundations for suo motto actions. The PPP government was involved in a four-year tussle with the apex court and has been accusing it of interfering in the jurisdiction of the Parliament and the executive branch of the government. Also the way, this Court made the highest-level bureaucrats run around to bring relevant papers or to take orders from their political bosses within hours, in some instances even an hour, has been considered as very inappropriate by many. The PPP complains that the Court has been targeting its leaders and government. Imran Khan, who for long had supported the justices of the highest court of the land, has a gripe of his own. He complained that the High judiciary and the Election Commission had joined to hold the most rigged elections in the country's history. He had also complained that the court was dragging its feet on giving decision on his party's petition to hold a recount of four constituency by checking the thumbprints of the voters.
Top lawyers and leaders in the movement for restoration of the original judiciary like Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd and retired Justice ® Mahmud have been critical from time to time. Of course, Aitzaz lost his cool when he appeared as lawyer for the then prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani but couldn't convince the judges; Kurd had called the justice, to put it lightly, arrogant; Justice Tariq's criticism has been mostly critical on technical grounds but more often than not.
But the most potent of all the accusation is the one in which most accusers join in unison and say that the Court is partial in favour of PML-N. What is worrisome is that while most of the above maybe accused of have an axe to grind, there are lawyers, intellectuals and leaders of civil society who have voiced similar views. Without going into the merits and demerits of the accusations it would be appropriate to say that in the interest of judiciary, justice and the country, the Supreme Court has to turn around the negative impressions. It has to ponder and find ways to make sure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment