1997 crisis: a replay

We have a court that is more visibly — or at least publicly — divided than any other in our history

It’s painful to note that things have snowballed into a serious duel – between the ruling coalition and the Chief Justice of Pakistan. After Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the honourable CJP, pronounced last Friday that the hearing of the petition challenging the delay in election to Punjab and K-P assemblies would continue from Monday (today) despite the apex court bench headed by him having reduced to just three members from nine, the PML-N-led coalition government has also taken off the gloves. Leaders of the PDM member parties held a meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, on Saturday and expressed “no confidence” in the diminished three-member bench. A day back, PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif had voiced an unequivocal rejection of the said bench and called for a full court bench to hear the case.

Though the CJP has already rejected the government’s request for a full court hearing, the differences between the judges may yet lead to that option being re-examined. We do have a court that is more visibly — or at least publicly — divided than any other in our history. A full bench would, for better or worse, allow for every judge to make observations and write concurrences or dissent opinions that would bring forth the collective wisdom of the top court on a significant political and constitutional matter. The divisive issue would also be granted finality, as it would be a full court decision, and whichever way the judges rule, the ruling coalition parties would have a hard time rejecting a decision made by a bench they had themselves called for.

While judges are duty-bound to rule on the facts and not personal or public opinions, the legitimacy of the court is also based on the perception that the justice is blind. For that to happen, judges need to proceed as professional jurists and let their written opinions do the talking, rather than political pundits in the vein of Iftikhar Chaudhry or Saqib Nisar, whose populist suo motu actions cost the country dear. At the same time, the PML-N, which was responsible for the 1997 storming of the court, should focus on using its legislative power to reform perceived problems instead of relying on aggressive rhetoric.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 4^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.