Spare institutions

58

IN the backdrop of the detailed verdict of the Supreme Court in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa review case, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Fawad Chaudhry has asked the judiciary to take stock of its “rapidly declining reputation” in the world ranking.

In a tweet, he said the Minister for Law and Justice Forough Naseem had raised an important question: if judges were not responsible for the assets of their wives and children, then how was it possible to hold politicians and bureaucrats accountable?

Judgements once delivered become public property and their criticism is not entirely wrong if remarks are couched in appropriate words and there is no attempt at casting aspersions on the overall image and reputation of the judiciary or for that matter any other institution.

Regrettably, it has become a routine on the part of both the Government and the Opposition to carry out scathing attacks on institutions when something goes wrong with their vested political interests.

The judiciary and its verdicts are hailed when considered as favourable and criticized when personal and party interests are harmed in any way.

Judgements are not a one-time phenomenon as these serve as a precedent for future cases and also contribute towards realization of the goal of good governance.

Taunting remarks against any institution by any official of the Government are not understandable as the Government, being the source of financing and reforms, cannot absolve itself of the responsibility if the reputation of an institution is tainted or its performance lacking.

Do politics but spare institutions as the strength of a country is deeply linked to the state of affairs of the national institutions.

 

 

Previous articleWEF praises Pakistan
Next articlePakistan committed to Afghan cause