The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the waiving off of loans by the State Bank of Pakistan on political grounds. The loans written off amounted to Rs 54 billions. While this is the publics money being squandered, the write-off of loans still remains the prerogative of the SBP. The beneficiaries of these write-offs were no destitute paupers and the grounds not humanitarianism. So it was heartening of the apex court to take notice of this issue.
A point which troubles me is the fact that where does one draw the line of judicial activism. It is true that the SBP has no transparent process for writing off loans but at the end of the day, the responsibility lies with the SBP to clean up its act and put the proper mechanisms in place. How far does the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court go? It is all well-and-good when it is taking care of illegal and shady loan write-offs but what will happen when the sphere of its activism keeps growing and encroaches upon institutions that should be independent like the judiciary e.g. the Election Commission of Pakistan. It is hard to imagine with the current goodwill that the judiciary enjoys that the judges of Pakistan will ever use their office to prop up illegal dictators or self-serve. But history has shown us repeatedly that it has happened. Also, how many things will the Supreme Court take suo motu notice of. The institutional corruption in Pakistan needs to be rectified on its own as we cannot rely on the Supreme Court to jump in where it is and isnt needed. Judicial independence and activism are both good things but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Which is why there are limits to judicial activism in most legal systems in the world.
BASHIR MIRZA
Lahore
