We see spread out before us a labyrinth that is, as things look now, virtually impossible to negotiate. Parliament and the Supreme Court have clashed directly with the latter on Friday striking down the new Contempt of Court law passed by parliament (in one hour and eight minutes) less than a month ago. The new law, as some members representing the government have conceded, was intended to protect the prime minister from meeting the same unfortunate fate as his predecessor and stated that a person holding public office could not be held in contempt. For that very reason, and because it was a political ploy by the PPP, the apex court’s verdict of August 3 was quite expected.
The question asked by the Supreme Court as to how one treatment could be meted out to one prime minister and a different kind to another is a valid one. But the whole issue raises the point of how the Constitution is to be treated and where final authority in this matter lies. The law in question was blatantly intended to suit the PPP-led government’s own interests. When going through with the new law, the ruling party knew the path would be opened up for greater confrontation with the judiciary and this is precisely what has happened. No well-wisher of Pakistan would have wanted this situation to emerge but it has. It is uncertain how we are to weave our way out of this maze with its many obstacles and dead ends.
One also needs to consider that even with the old contempt law in place, there is a question on some people’s minds and it is not entirely an irrelevant one. It has to do with holding the judiciary accountable, much like any other pillar of the state. The perception that politicians are singled out for criticism in a country like Pakistan, with generals and judges considered holy cows, keeps on getting reinforced. As for the generals, they should be considered equal under the law and by the courts. And as far as the judges are concerned, there is the Supreme Judicial Council but it is headed by the chief justice of Pakistan so it can be argued that this accountability mechanism, insofar as the country’s judiciary is concerned, is not entirely transparent.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2012.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Lala Gee: "This law was destined to be doomed the day it was enacted because it was so against the basic principles of justice and provisions of the constitution. This law in fact made a few hundred selected people above the law paving way for unabated corruption and plunder. I wonder if this government of PPP is capable of doing anything but corruption."
If there were some clauses that were unconstitutional, those clauses could have been thrown out giving specific reference to the clauses in constitution that were violated in the judgment instead of throwing out the entire law by making a global statement that it is unconstitutional.
@Lala Gee: "The intellectual level of some of the commentators is unbelievable. Court cannot prosecute anyone by themselves even if they wish to do so. It is the responsibility of the executive to prosecute someone i.e. lodge FIR, investigate, collect evidence, and argue case in the courts of law."
But court can and does set up commissions where it puts executive nominees on the dock e.g. memogate. When you look at the meogate judgment - based on othing other than unsubstantiated testimony of a foreign citizen who is openly anti-Pakistan, you really have to wonder.
@Imran Con:
"If his only care was the law he wouldn’t be making public statements as if he was a politician."
Then please tell them and us what exactly should they by saying during court proceedings and in their addresses to bar association ceremonies. At least I don't expect them to speak about biology or physics instead of law and legal issues.
@Pan Mat:
"If holding Constitution is such a sacrosanct topic for Pakistani judiciary then they should prosecute all judges retired and current then supported abeyance of Constitution under different military regimes."
The intellectual level of some of the commentators is unbelievable. Court cannot prosecute anyone by themselves even if they wish to do so. It is the responsibility of the executive to prosecute someone i.e. lodge FIR, investigate, collect evidence, and argue case in the courts of law.
@asad akmal siddiuie
''NO.Justice Chaudhry is only concerned to see that the law is not voilated. For that matter if his verdict effects PPP or Zardari or any A.B.C he should not be held responsible"
then my brother what to do with the judges taken oath under musharraf PCO, n also who granted musharraf to enjoy by making any ammendments in constitution, where was the law and these so called protectors of law at that time??? Should these judges not be accountable for playing with the constitution at at that time ??? Did they make any appology before this nation for their evil deeds ???? Reality is, that our system is just like a pendulum. We have been lost in a maze of extremities. And iftikhar choudhary is another hue of our extemitist society.
@Assad Kamal Siddiqui: "NO.Justice Chaudhry is only concerned to see that the law is not violated." While dislodging them is a bit too extreme, you're wrong too. If his only care was the law he wouldn't be making public statements as if he was a politician. Most judges wouldn't say much at all and make it a point to stay away from the media at least until the trials are over. Even then the involved judges will only make a speech inside the court room after the verdict is presented. They make claims of supporting "innocent until proven guilty" but there's most certainly no sign of it. To basically make the judgement public before the trial even gets started implies their motives and priorities are that of influencing an audience, rather then preserving law and order. A judge only concerned with the law and fairness would not be caught dead doing such things. It means the trial is trivial, which means their right to a fair trial has been violated and they're just going through the motions. A judge is supposed to be neutral. They aren't. Their ego doesn't let them. A fair trial is impossible when it effects them in a way they don't like and they claim nobody has the authority to question their absolute authority.
Mr,Babarsherkhan,
your comments on the issue."it is becoming lncreasingly clear now that Justice Chaudhry wants to dislodge PPP and Zardari out of power by any means before the next general election."
NO.Justice Chaudhry is only concerned to see that the law is not voilated. For that matter if his verdict effects PPP or Zardari or any A.B.C he should not be held responsible.To see that law is not voilated is the moral and professional responsibilty of a judge.I can not recall the correct words of Winston Churchil but the message was "if the courts are functioining with responsibilty, we are in safe hands."
@Babbarsher khan: @Pan Mat: I agree with both of you. By dismissing the new law by elected NA and Senate and endorsing the 2003 contempt law once again, the SC has proved that they still follow Gen Mush's dictatorial laws under PCO. Nothing has changed ever after Mush had to run away. Thanks for telling like it is, and regards, Mirza
If holding Constitution is such a sacrosanct topic for Pakistani judiciary then they should prosecute all judges retired and current then supported abeyance of Constitution under different military regimes.