A sane voice
We certainly need an independent judiciary, but one which is made up of individuals with unchallenged integrity.
Asma Jahangir, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), has spoken out without restraint on the issue of the Supreme Court (SC) order, overruling the parliamentary committee decision not to grant extensions to six higher judiciary judges, as recommended by the judicial commission. The parliamentary committee has decided to seek a review of the decision and the entire affair has revived last year’s tussle between the judiciary and the executive.
Ms Jahangir’s comments, stating that the SC judgment would encourage ‘unscrupulous’ individuals to contrive to make their way onto benches and that the legislature had been undermined by it, have been met with a predictable wave of criticism. The SCBA president has been accused of working against an independent judiciary or of aligning herself with the government. The politicisation we have seen of the row between the judiciary and parliament has made things even more complex. But perhaps some note needs to be taken of precisely what Asma Jahangir has said, rather than resorting to all kinds of emotional comment. Ms Jahangir has pointed out that the judicial commission had disregarded negative comments about the six judges made by the chief justices of the high courts and given no reason for this. She has also said the parliamentary committee could serve no useful purpose if it was to act simply as a rubber stamp.
These views from an eminent lawyer need to be given some weight. We certainly need an independent judiciary, but we also need one which is made up only of individuals with unchallenged integrity. This undoubtedly is the aim of the SC too. Most important of all is to abide by the rule of law, consider the contents of the 18th and 19th Amendment in which the role of the parliamentary committee has been spelled out and then abide by what the law states, so that a damaging tug-of-war between institutions can be avoided.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 11th, 2011.
Ms Jahangir’s comments, stating that the SC judgment would encourage ‘unscrupulous’ individuals to contrive to make their way onto benches and that the legislature had been undermined by it, have been met with a predictable wave of criticism. The SCBA president has been accused of working against an independent judiciary or of aligning herself with the government. The politicisation we have seen of the row between the judiciary and parliament has made things even more complex. But perhaps some note needs to be taken of precisely what Asma Jahangir has said, rather than resorting to all kinds of emotional comment. Ms Jahangir has pointed out that the judicial commission had disregarded negative comments about the six judges made by the chief justices of the high courts and given no reason for this. She has also said the parliamentary committee could serve no useful purpose if it was to act simply as a rubber stamp.
These views from an eminent lawyer need to be given some weight. We certainly need an independent judiciary, but we also need one which is made up only of individuals with unchallenged integrity. This undoubtedly is the aim of the SC too. Most important of all is to abide by the rule of law, consider the contents of the 18th and 19th Amendment in which the role of the parliamentary committee has been spelled out and then abide by what the law states, so that a damaging tug-of-war between institutions can be avoided.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 11th, 2011.