Judgments aren't written to settle scores: CJP

Stresses need for judges to be independent of all influences at ceremony marking new judicial year

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar on Monday observed that judges do not write judgments to settle scores.

“We serve the people of Pakistan and we serve the Constitution of Pakistan to the best of our understanding and ability. We do not write judgments to please, we do not write judgments to settle scores, we render judgments in the fine scales of justice,” said the chief justice in his address at the opening ceremony for the new judicial year.

The CJP went on to explain that the Constitution provided a system of governance to be run by three organs of the state including the executive, legislature and judiciary. “The Constitution is supreme and each state organ has to perform its duties and functions in accordance with the Constitutional scheme. The most vital aspect of a true democracy is the rule of law for which the independence of the judiciary is [unconditionally required],” he maintained.

Stressing the protection of fundamental rights of the people, Justice Nisar said the independence of judiciary means that the judges must be independent of all kinds of influences from any side, be it executive or by any other person or authority in the echelons of power.

“Under the Constitution, the judiciary is vested with the power to undertake judicial reviews whenever any authority or functionary of the state acts [beyond their authority under] the Constitution or the law,” he said, adding that an official action which violates Constitution or the law reflects arbitrariness, results in misgovernance, non-governance and consequently in injustice. “The prevalence of injustice results in denial and infringement of rights of the citizens, which in turn leads to chaos and anarchy in the society.”

 



The CJ has also revealed that 29,262 complaints were received in the Human Rights Cell, established in the Supreme Court under the public interest litigation jurisdiction for redressal of grievances. On this side, 29,657 complaints were disposed of leaving behind 9,701 complaints. This exercise, in some measure, brought relief to the aggrieved persons.

Later, a full court meeting was held wherein the judges reviewed the institution and disposal figure of cases and expressed satisfaction over the overall performance. However, the full court observed that untiring efforts should be made to reduce the pendency and clear the backlog of the cases. The full court also discussed in detail different strategies for the effective functioning of the Court so that dispensation of justice can be further improved and relief provided to litigants.

Equal justice

Earlier, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf Ali stressed the need to establish a mechanism of institutional dialogue for the betterment of the justice delivery system.

“We must establish a mechanism of institutional dialogue to bring about the sort exchange of ideas that can transform our justice delivery system as we know it,” insisted the AGP.

He said, “At the risk of redundancy, I again say that a free exchange of ideas never compromises the independence of separation of state institutions rather it can only develop a greater understanding of themselves and each other.”

The AGP further maintained that the Panamagate case judgment affected the trichotomy of powers in the country.

“I would wish to dwell a few moments longer on this overarching ideal – the separation of powers – a trichotomy wherein the powers and parameters of the executive, judiciary and legislature are clearly demarcated. Recent events, however, have not augured well for this trichotomy and, by extension, for the development of our constitutional democracy. We witnessed first-hand a confluence of these factors when political issues were brought before this court, leaving parties without the right of appeal”



The AGP also highlighted the role of media in such cases. According to him, “As the media’s role continues to expand in our national discourse, it is hoped that it will not transform into a parallel peoples’ court system…a trend which ought to be checked without compromising constitutional guarantees.”

He also said that “some of the judgments by our courts have led to proceedings before international forums that have in turn awarded damages to investors in billions of dollars and billions more are pending in claims against the state.”

On Panamagate

Meanwhile, Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Ahsan Bhoon appreciated the Panamagate verdict and said that on the basis of same principles, other institutions will also be held accountable. He also expressed concern over the reappointment of retired superior court judges in different departments, adding that the monthly pensions for judges are enough to lead comfortable lives after retirement.

Ahsan believes that the three-judge July 28 decision lacked reasoning, which allowed critics to raise questions over the verdict, despite there being enough material to justify the SC’s verdict.

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Rasheed A Rizvi said, “The bar does not believe that only independence and honest people capable of an impartial inquiry against a sitting government belonged to the armed forces and is firmly committed to the democratic and constitutional idea of civilian supremacy.”

While referring to the SC’s April 20 verdict on Panamagate, he said inviting input from military agencies in a case of such political sensitivity inevitably leads to finger-pointing, not only at the military but at this court itself.



The SCBA president believes that Article 209 of the Constitution has never been successfully invoked against a judge, he added.

“We need to move away from our rigid inconsistence toward exclusive self-regulation and each of us needs to involve the other more substantively both in the process of entry of removal. Perhaps, like many other jurisdictions, we can even consider involving reputable persons from other professions and civil society in the process. Perhaps, sealing oneself off from any kind of external scrutiny is not a necessary pre-requisite for independence.”