There is no doubt that, in these days the Judiciary of Pakistan is quite different. It is different from what people of Pakistan used to see whole through their life. So, I feel, it will take some time for us Pakistanis, particularly the intelligentsia, to be accustomed to this new look Judiciary. An understanding and unquestionable endorsement from the public, and particularly from the intelligentsia, is the very basic requirement for the Judiciary to be effective in playing its due role in the country.
“Azad mansh” (independence minded) judiciary, as extolled by many stalwarts of glorious lawyers’ movement, is not the only ingredient for the judiciary to be effective, or “independent” – as they used to say, but it needs much much more for its real role to play.
The foremost thing, of course, is that the people in the judges’ chairs should be ‘azad mansh’, but at the same time they should be the persons deserving these chairs, in others words – “right people for right job”. They should be thoroughly analytical, judgmental, decisive and religiously willing to deliver justice at any cost. They should have the knowledge and guts to give judgment – not alone the verdict – which could find its way into the law.
In Pakistan, we are unfortunately still following acts and laws enacted 100/150 years ago, when the politics, economics, geography and demography were totally different – when rulers were different and when the number of ruled were quite few as compared what is prevailing today. So, it becomes imperative that, the judges should not only pass the verdict, but should give the judgment which could fill the gaps in the laws, which could become case laws. But in Pakistan, the things are very often than not strange and funny. I have seen many verdicts of higher courts, which have been source of respite for many, but without continuing on them they have been nullified by totally different verdicts given subsequently. It is, however, up to the people who give judgment or verdict to sort these things out.
Coming to the point of effective and independent judiciary, apart from the judiciary being manned by “azad mansh” judges, it is imperative that, the judiciary should be independent both administratively and financially. The tussle for administrative independence from the Executive, or at least the understanding for the same, is going on. It may take some time more for financial independence to come to the fore, or in the common debates.
With the new face of Judiciary in our front, and with our newly acquired wisdom through independent media, we all are relentlessly debating and discussing every act and word of judicial people. In my humble opinion, this trend should be discouraged as much as possible. This is hampering the strengthening of Judiciary as an important state institution, on which depends dissemination of justice, preservation of constitution and upholding of fundamental rights.
The new found judiciary is doing many things new in the country. These may eventually become the building blocks of a new and totally independent judicial institution. This judiciary, in my humble opinion, needs to take many more new steps that might be unique, unconventional and extraordinary, and may be without having any precedence elsewhere. This would help define the role and nature of the judiciary in this country. In all developed countries, as it is understood, judicial norms and diktats are developed through centuries-old customs, conventions, practices and people’s respect for written and unwritten values for justice. But we have just entered into that realm. So, through such unique and unprecedented actions, in which judges in service should also be involved, we may start developing such values, gradually but promptly.
There are some issues of general interest involving judiciary and judges on which debates by media people and politicians are vociferously going on. As the apex court takes suo moto notice of issues of public interest, so should it take notice of such issues, and call all the related parties to the court room to have full fledged debate and lead to logical conclusion. Surely, such conclusions may not be and should not be conclusive for all time to come, and may remain open for future revision and review. But for now, we should proceed on clearing confusion and developing consensus.
Now-a-days too much discussions and debates are going on on the Judiciary. Almost every one of the society, whether has any standing or not, bears some opinions about the conduct and role of the Judiciary, and thanks to the opening in the media, can now freely propagate the same for the consumption of general public. But this is not beneficial for any institution, nor for the country. I am sure, the nation is not becoming any wiser by these debates, which at times touch the verge of tirades against judiciary. This creates confusion in common man’s mind, which is least wanted at this juncture of our national life.
This brings us to the question of “contempt of court”. Once the doctrine of “contempt of court” was overly used in this country, or kept hanging as Damocles’ sword on the necks of discerning people willing to stand against injustices. But now-a-days “contempt of court” is heavily under-used, or not at all used. This is also doing no good to the country – to its prevailing situation. This is incubating sorts of despondency, disrespect and discourtesy in the minds of general public against the institution, and the pillar of the state, which must to be seen with respect and awe. But this respect, awe and veneration is being dreadfully compromised on simple political exigencies.
Without doubt, the sitting judges of higher courts should avoid controversial and politically tainted public/private statements at all cost. At the same time, they should also ‘ration’, if not censor, the unabated and unbridled opinion mongering by all sorts of people from vested interest politicians, to so-called experienced journalists, to rookie journalists and anchor persons, to people on the street – all and sundry. Higher courts should take concrete steps to reduce or curtail all sorts of opinion mongering, except event reporting and reporting on cases pending for any valid or invalid reasons. The media and media people may discuss the published verdict purely from legal angles, and nothing more than that.
My last words for today: everyone’s pontifical effort to become judicial expert must be stopped forthwith!
- Syed Sayef Hussain (originally posted on Sayef Hussain writes)
Related posts:
Posted in 
Tags: 
