Cry me a river

Post-26th amendment, the judiciary's powers are clipped, sparking debate on executive control and citizen rights.

Now, that the dust has settled around the whole 26th amendment fiasco, I think this would be an apt time to reasonably think about what transpired.

There are two sides to this argument. One side is that the judiciary's powers have been clipped significantly. The other side of the argument is that the parliament can do whatever it pleases, as long as it does not violate fundamental rights of the citizens and as long as it follows the procedure laid down by the Constitution. It can also make its own procedures if it wants. As it did.

Coming to the former argument of curtailment of judicial powers, being a first-generation lawyer, let me address the elephant in the room and this might not go down well with many. But, after appearing before a plethora of judicial officers for more than a gazillion times, I think the judiciary did need some check from the executive. Highly unpopular opinion.

Although this argument does run contradictory to the notion of separation of powers but for a third world country, separation of powers is more of an academic argument and has little to nothing to do with the reality on the ground. All of us are aware of how things work around here.

Through the 26th amendment though, the government will have authority to choose who becomes the Chief Justice of the country amongst the top three judges of the Apex Court. Members of the legal fraternity argue that doing so violates the seniority principle. What seniority principle though? The seniority principle, again, was more of a 'in the books, for the books' principle because it wasn't being followed anyway. Yes, there were rulings of the Apex Court which laid down the procedure for appointment of judges while placing emphasis on the so-called seniority principle.

But, if we look at it from a simplistic point of view, judges in various countries are appointed by the executive. Yes, I know, the argument then goes that a lot of other things happen in various countries too (ever heard of social security, tax refunds, quality education?) but each government comes in with their own policies. Those policies might not be accepted by the masses but I would say, let the experts (can't believe I said that) do their jobs. They've done so well that we're a country running on the whims of the International Monetary Fund now. That takes some doing.

Being a part of the legal fraternity, many of my learned friends fervently opposed the 26th amendment, going as far as saying that they would protest against the said amendment, which, of course, is their fundamental right (the last time I checked). But if the executive is performing certain actions in line with the laid-down procedures and rules, what's the harm? Just because I, as a citizen, don't like something doesn't mean it's illegal.

And who are we to protest? The newly appointed Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan approved of it, his colleagues approved of it too. Various news sources reported that the incumbent met his colleagues in their chambers and there were no hard feelings between either of them. Not just that, even the bar councils around the country welcomed the appointment of the new Chief Justice of Pakistan. Which was surprising to say the least. We aren't people who look at the bright side of things. We don't belong to that pedigree. So, thumbs-up to those who issued notifications and took the appointment well.

At the same time, there are those who disagreed and they have all right to do so. Disagreement fosters constructive discussion and I am here for that.

Which reminds me, the amendment has also taken away suo motu powers from the Courts. Good move or bad move? I think if the judiciary was kept in a little more check earlier, the residents of the infamous Nasla Tower would've still had a roof over their heads.

The executive now calls the shots. Cry me a river.