The author’s constructions on the question seem to be slightly far-fetched.
NEW DELHI, INDIA: This is with reference to Saroop Ijaz’s article “Brahmins and shudras” (June 10). The writer seems to have lost sight of one aspect when discussing the Arsalan Iftikhar case. Taking suo motu notice of any matter is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Other judges do not have that prerogative. So, when the hearing began, the CJ had to be there to begin the proceedings.
At the earliest possible opportunity, the CJ should have withdrawn from the bench. He should not have tarried a moment longer than was necessary. He seems to have done just that. How does this become the basis for the long-winded argument that the writer has presented? It seems to me that the CJ has acted with absolute propriety and should be applauded for doing this. The author’s constructions on the question seem to be slightly far-fetched.
Dr VC Bhutani
Published In The Express Tribune, June 12th, 2012.
