SC judgment
Supreme Court order renewed debate on the justification of invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution
To the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Covid-19 “apparently is not a pandemic in Pakistan” and “the [federal and provincial] governments should not put all its [sic] resources for this one disease, nor the country should be made all together dysfunctional, because of this disease, for its consequences will be highly detrimental to the people of Pakistan”.
A five-member bench of the top court headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, while issuing a six-page order on Monday in a suo motu case, questioned several steps taken by the Centre and provinces to deal with coronavirus crisis, including the closure of mega shopping malls even though small shops and markets are allowed to operate; ban on all shops and businesses to operate on Saturdays and Sundays, and sealing of certain shops and plazas as a penalty for not adhering to SOPs.
While the mentioned restrictions don’t hold in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, other such measures not attended to in the judgment — like a ban on public transport, restricted flight and train operations, social distancing in mosques during prayer congregations, limited hours for the businesses to operate — are unlikely to find justification to continue. And the authorities are bound to come under pressure to do away with the remaining restrictions as well. The judgment, thus, drives the proverbial last nail in the coffin of the fragile lockdown arrangements.
Also, the top court finds “no reason why so much money is being spent on this Coronavirus” while “there are other serious ailments prevailing in the country, from which people are dying daily”. The message that this observation sends to an already carefree public may not have gone down well with the medical community that has all along been calling for a strict lockdown across the country, given that the virus has yet to peak in the country and the infection curve is yet to flatten.
Irrespective of its merits, the Supreme Court order has also renewed the debate on the justification of invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, time will tell whether what is being described by many as “judicial interference in the matters of the executive” was justified or not. And the time is not too far.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 20th, 2020.
A five-member bench of the top court headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, while issuing a six-page order on Monday in a suo motu case, questioned several steps taken by the Centre and provinces to deal with coronavirus crisis, including the closure of mega shopping malls even though small shops and markets are allowed to operate; ban on all shops and businesses to operate on Saturdays and Sundays, and sealing of certain shops and plazas as a penalty for not adhering to SOPs.
While the mentioned restrictions don’t hold in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, other such measures not attended to in the judgment — like a ban on public transport, restricted flight and train operations, social distancing in mosques during prayer congregations, limited hours for the businesses to operate — are unlikely to find justification to continue. And the authorities are bound to come under pressure to do away with the remaining restrictions as well. The judgment, thus, drives the proverbial last nail in the coffin of the fragile lockdown arrangements.
Also, the top court finds “no reason why so much money is being spent on this Coronavirus” while “there are other serious ailments prevailing in the country, from which people are dying daily”. The message that this observation sends to an already carefree public may not have gone down well with the medical community that has all along been calling for a strict lockdown across the country, given that the virus has yet to peak in the country and the infection curve is yet to flatten.
Irrespective of its merits, the Supreme Court order has also renewed the debate on the justification of invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, time will tell whether what is being described by many as “judicial interference in the matters of the executive” was justified or not. And the time is not too far.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 20th, 2020.