The restoration of Justice (R) Shaukat Siddiqui followed a flurry of revelations, debunking the state of affairs crystallizing in the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Six honourable judges of the said court indicted a joint letter, representing a collation of events engulfing them over the last two years. The letter addressed the unpleasant encounters the honourable judges had with non-state actors. The joint letter received solemn attention. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa held two full-court meetings along with meetings with the Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, consensus between the executive and judiciary solidified and an inquiry commission was instituted as a result. However, the head of the inquiry commission recused himself. Another instance of court manoeuvring emerged with the delivery of threatening letters to different judges across the country. Just as the Supreme Court, by crossing the Rubicon, has taken suo motu, the way forward is laden with eggshells. In the light of the above, the following questions arise:
Q1: Who has to probe the issue?
Ans: Although the Supreme Court has been the cynosure in the past, often indiscriminate in exercising its authority, the present panel of judges is committed to adhering to the rulebook. However, the executive emerges as the authority empowered to probe the issue. The court may pass strict guidelines regarding the terms of reference (TORs).
Q2: Will the court succeed in identifying the culprits? Ans: The court is, in every scenario, dependent upon executive bodies. Moreover, the intimidating events, though involving highhandedness on the part of the executive, the judicial dependence notwithstanding, the court may elicit truth by strictly supervising the probe. However, Pakistan’s checkered history speaks otherwise.
Q3: Will the complainant judges face consequences if the allegations go unproven?
Ans: If the allegations go unproven, the judges may also remain unscathed, given the independent mannerisms of the present judicial establishment. The judges of IHC are unlikely to face repercussions as Justice (R) Siddiqui did.
Worth noting, too, is the political front amidst the present fiasco. All parties pursue personal politicking, trading their stock slogans: independent judiciary is cardinal and the issue should be probed transparently. One party objects to the constitution of the jury while the other supports it to secure political mileage. Unfortunately, none raise the issue in the legislature, despite nothing holding much power in democracy than the legislature. None seem to understand that rules should be formed to strengthen the judiciary in its independent functioning. Are they unaware of the powers vested in them? Not at all. They suffer from misplaced priorities. They themselves ignore democratic norms, inviting non-state actors to have a say. Ultimately, the court must bring the matter to a logical conclusion, instead of getting entangled in legal intricacies. The rules of conduct governing judges must be amended, guiding judges on how to conduct themselves when approached and forming legal barriers around themselves when faced with such issues.
The writer is a contributing columnist based in Gujranwala. ([email protected])
