To call anyone who is pro-PPP as necessarily anti-Supreme Court is a bit absurd.
LAHORE: This is with reference in reply to Nadir Hassan’s article of February 21 titled “Well done, SC”.
My counter arguments to Mr Hassan’s column are: Counter argument 1.0: The court has fortunately decided to take up the petition of Asghar Khan after a lapse of more than 15 years. The age-old maxim that ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ applies in this regard. And, it could be argued, that this has happened only after the media made much of it recently, urging the apex court to pursue the lost petition in a manner as vigorous as it has the case of the NRO. As for the missing persons matter, yes, the apex court has been asking the intelligence agencies to explain their position on certain cases. However, it would have been far better if the heads of the agencies were called in to answer the court.
Counter argument 2.0: The Supreme Court has been very proactive in the prime minister’s contempt case but it could be argued that it was perhaps not this proactive in a similar case of contempt against PCO judges. And this brings me to my legal query. Can the Supreme Court conduct a fair trial of a person when it is itself a party to the case? This is an uncomfortable but important question.
I am no fan of the PPP by any stretch of the imagination, but to call anyone who is pro-PPP as necessarily anti-Supreme Court is a bit absurd. There is no doubt about the fact that the Supreme Court must be respected. However, to criticise the decisions and verdicts that it delivers in good faith and keeping in mind the public interest does not render the person making such criticism as someone who is anti-Court.
Affan A Taj
Advocate
Published in The Express Tribune, February 23rd, 2012.
