WHAT is this entire fuss about the 26 constitutional amendment? Critics are saying, interalia, that it curtails the powers of the judiciary and clips its wings. So? Didn’t we learn in Law school that the Parliament is supreme? We were taught the widely used example of ‘the Parliament, if it wants, can pass a law saying all blue-eyed babies should be killed’. Of-course, that was metaphorical. But you get the idea. The Parliament has power to make whatever laws it wants, as long as they don’t violate the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The argument then put forth is that the current coalition government has questionable legitimacy. Well, if it does, then approach the courts? What’s with the armchair criticisms? Lawyers came out in hordes to protest against the said amendment. I am a lawyer too (or at-least I try to be) and I thought a) protesting against laws passed democratically was unwarranted and b) a lawyer understands that laws passed in accordance with procedure are good laws, no matter how much personal disagreement one carries with them. Unpopular opinion.
And are we really naïve enough to think that protesting against something makes a difference? Or are we still living in wonderland? Protests seldom work against such things. Have they worked against anything? They make for a good photo opportunity though and they give you an audience, if you crave attention.
But that being said, protest is everyone’s constitutional right and no one deserves to be detained or treated inhumanely for protesting. Everyone saw what happened to protestors a couple of days ago outside the Press Club. Such police brutality is condemned, should be condemned and the perpetrators should be proceeded against. But, is anything or anyone proceeded against? Unless of-course you’re an innocent man being asked where your money came from. Then, the odds of you ending up behind bars are quite high.
The 26th amendment is happening. It is here to stay. Make peace with it. We might not like the content of the amendment. The draft may seem a little too pro-executive and it is evident that the executive aims at increasing its participation in the matters of the judiciary and violating all principles of the separation of powers. But, as rational and logical beings (or so I assume), there is nothing illegal about it. Yes, the seniority concept of the judges of the apex court will be compromised but wasn’t it always compromised? The Al-Jehad Trust case was good for the books only. Many times we’ve seen judges being promoted and appointed without the seniority principle being followed. Even then, we marched and protested, what happened?
Idealism, innocence and naivety are either gifts or curses. I would say the latter. A young lawyer sits beside me in court, tells me he has a good case and shows me a judgement in his favor that he will cite during his arguments. The judgement, I know, is only good on paper. Why so? Our institutions who are liable to enforce contents of that judgement are weak. We might have the best laws but our enforcement mechanisms are non-existent, marred by corruption and laxity. The young lawyer, I looked at him, and felt for him. The young man will probably spend years and years until his client gets what they want.
Ideally, laws are supposed to be made to facilitate the people, not to benefit the executive. They’re supposed to be made to help the system function smoother, to formulate robust mechanisms, to ensure accountability. But it seems as none of that is on the priority list for our executives. We don’t deserve any of that either. We’re a nation who has learned to stay silent, keep our heads down, not stand up for our rights, mix water with milk, produce fake medicines, torture animals, sell hazardous food and what have you. In essence, we’re reaping what we’ve sown. Until our hearts are cleaned of corruption and immorality, we will continue to be ruled by such men and women. We deserve it.
—The writer is lawyer with a Masters from Northeastern University.
