“Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.” Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), Chief Justice, US Supreme Court
A good many number of suo moto actions and some of the judgments of the present Supreme Court seem to have undertones of judicial populism. Though the enthusiasm for such actions has somehow subsided but the memory of Supreme Court fixing the sugar price and playing to the tune of popular issues will remain fresh for too long. The roots of this judicial populism lie deep in the Restoration Movement itself.
The July 20 judgment was termed, among other things, ‘a people’s verdict.’ However, what made the judgment unusual are some of the objections still prevalent among those who support it and those who do not it. The most fatal objection is that all those processions, rallies and addresses were aimed at influencing the honourable court. The Chief Justice and his counsels should not have gone out to win the support of the people.
The rebuttal of this objection termed judiciary as B-team of Pakistan Army, and by harnessing the popular support wanted to put pressure on it to act instead as A-team of the people.
Also it was argued that had lawyers and people at large not come out to the rescue of the Chief Justice he would not have survived civil and military manipulations. Fair enough, the popular pressure was not meant to influence theCourt but the government which in Pakistan is notorious to intrigue its plans as it wishes.
The movement did this job quite effectively. But in the heat of time, it was misunderstood and misinterpreted as putting pressure on the Supreme Courts.
This took strength from late Justice Dorab Patel. At that time, he was quoted as justifying his role in the bench that validated the military takeover of General (Retd) Zia-ul-Haq on the plea that ‘how could a few judges stop the coup leader when a nation of 140 million remained silent.’
This lends no support to justifying the lawyers’ movement and the participation of civil society organizations, political and religious parties in it.
Does this prove that it was this movement that midwived the birth of the July 20 judgment? It did, but in the eyes of only those who hold such a view. It is for those who are Dorabians and believe that without such a movement no such judgment could have issued forth from the full bench of the highest court of the country.
This requires that they should not believe in the Constitution which clearly dismisses such military takeovers and prescribes the strictest punishment for its violators. It amounts to saying that the custodian of the Constitution, the judiciary, needs people’s support to protect, defend and interpret the Constitution in accordance with the spirit and provisions of the Constitution. Without this support, the July 20 verdict could not be delivered. If it is so, and as it is projected it is so, it is most unfortunate for the supremacy of the constitution in Pakistan.
DR KHALIL AHMAD
Lahore
