AS a young(ish) lawyer, in recent times, everywhere I go, I am asked just one question: Is this really how the Courts function? – Or some iteration of the same. Be it a client meeting, or a family event, everyone gathers around the one individual wearing a black coat to ask about the latest spectacle in town. For a few months now, the talk of the town has been the Supreme Court proceedings on national television. It is reminiscent of the craze surrounding ‘Humsfar’, where the entire nation seemed to wait for the new episode to gather around the TV, to see what will happen next. Again, as a lawyer, getting the opportunity to watch the Supreme Court proceedings on the ‘Practice and Procedures Bill’, or the “Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Reference”, or most recently the “Appointment of Election RO’s Case” from the comfort of a TV screen is like no other.
On multiple occasions, it was like watching a Netflix documentary, with a constant contest between members of the judiciary. Not to mention the airing of dirty laundry with the public exchange of letters between the honourable Justices, the suspension of the “Military Courts Judgment” (with some glaring legal caveats), the Supreme Judicial Council proceedings against one of their own, or the letter issued for airport clearance to spouses of sitting Justices. While, as a lawyer, I tend to (somewhat) understand the allegiances and rationale of the stance taken by each of the honourable Supreme Court Justices, many around me fail to comprehend it. This often leads to a bombardment of questions (read: criticism), as the nation continuously watches in awe of the mighty Supreme Court.
These days, it is all anyone can speak about – which is understandable considering every news outlet covers the proceedings minute for minute. It is an excellent façade, designed to make the common man believe the transparency with which the highest Court of the land functions (at least under the able guidance of the current honorable Chief Justice). On many occasions, over the years, we have seen the judiciary come under scrutiny. This institution has always been criticized for a wide array of reasons (often justifiable in nature). Often, one hears the honorable Chief Justice speak of transforming the judiciary and ushering an era of transparency and breaking the shackles of slavery to the influential individuals (while simultaneously seeking exemptions from airport security checks of their family members). These catch phrases are great to hear, but what has been the practical manifestation of attempting to achieve these lofty aspirations. On the face of it, it seems as if the Supreme Court is just about as active as it has ever been. A full court was assembled (almost farcically) to decide the ‘Practice and Procedures Bill’. The NAB amendments struck down by the former Chief Justice were overturned (quite swiftly). The elections date has been scheduled, not through open court, but through backchanneling and communication, however, there has been zero accountability for the blatant disregard for the Constitution and the mandate given thereunder to hold elections in ninety (90) days. Just recently, the Supreme Court was opened in the late hours of the evening to hear an appeal against the decision of the Lahore High Court. In doing so, on live television, they proceeded to overturn the order to restrain the appointment of executive officials as returning officers for the upcoming elections – while simultaneously issuing contempt against the individual filing the petition to outline the bias of the same executive officers. If it had not happened before, this proceeding surely had the entire nation questioning the independence of the judiciary.
Apart from these (marquee) decisions, on social media, one often hears comments of the honorable Chief Justice asking learned counsels to disregard titles of former Presidents of Pakistan, claiming that he does not recognize anyone who came to power ‘by force of arms’ or give sweeping statements with complete indifference to the presumed neutrality of the seat of the honorable Chief Justice. This is a man who has always been fond of creating headlines. Recently, as the senior puisne, he staged a walk out in open court, only to showcase his ‘righteous’ stand before the public. The same goal could easily have been achieved behind closed doors which would not only convey his dissent or distrust, but also retain the dignity of the highest court of the land. It is at times said:
“Beware of self-righteousness in every possible shape and form. Some people get as much harm from their ‘virtues’ as others do from their sins.” When one thinks of the common man struggling to make both ends meet, trying to ensure that the current state of Pakistan’s economy does not impact his ability to feed his family – would it really matter to this man if the Chief Justice of Pakistan has the power to take unilateral suo motu action? Or the legality of the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – on the basis of a presidential reference which was initiated over a decade ago. When this man looks at the television and sees the live stream of these proceedings, or any of the sweeping statements being passed, his only question is how those impact him and his ability to cater to the ones he is responsible for.
On a factual level, the burden of cases piling up in the Supreme Court seems to increase by the day, while all the honorable Judges are gathered in a full bench, spending the entire day listening to a matter which (at least in the grand scheme of things) seem irrelevant and pointless. Even so, the Chief Justice very proudly upholds the position of the Lahore High Court (when asked if judicial officers can serve as returning officers to ensure free and fair elections), citing the mountain of pending case load being the reason for the unavailability of judicial officers. To this end, the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has a maximum capacity of 17 Judges, of which, currently, we only have 16 (the 16th having been appointed very recently). Similarly, the Lahore High Court has a maximum capacity of having 60 Judges on its roster, whereas currently, only 41 have been appointed. The same problem exists in all other courts.
Would it not be far more prudent to fill the vacant seats in the judiciary, and at least attempt to lessen the burden of the stacks of cases pending for decades. From the perspective of this common man, the ‘marquee’ decisions rendered thus far seem either self-serving (at best) or being beholden to an invisible master (at worst). This makes one reminisce upon the times of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary or Justice Saqib Nisar, which (comparatively) seem to have been those of normalcy. This certainly speaks to more to the current circumstances, than it does to the prowess of the honorable Court back in the day.
While it still may be early on in the tenure of the honorable Chief Justice to form an opinion, the start has not been very promising (to say the least). For quite a long time, the current honorable Chief Justice was heralded as the saviour that was promised in the judiciary. So, if my criticism seems a little unjust, it is because of the hope and expectation preceding it. For a long time, my answer to every critic would be ‘wait for Justice Isa’. MiLord, the wait is over, the time is now. Let’s address the issues that truly matter.
—The writer is a lawyer and occasionally contributes to the national press.
views expressed are writer’s own.
