Keeping in view the delay in disposal of cases involving terrorism and sectarian violence, which is encouraging the offenders to take the law into their own hands, the government has at last written a letter to the chief justice for setting up special courts for speedy justice.
A major cause of delay in quick disposal of such cases is shortage of special courts, late submission of challans, poor prosecution and multiplicity of appeals which the concerned parties have a tendency to exploit. Almost every lawyer advises his client to opt for the option of special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. According to a senior lawyer, Muhammad Akram Sheikh, establishment of special courts would help curb terrorism. However, he said that in many cases where special leave to appeal is applied for, there is hardly any justification to the effect provided for under the constitution to move the apex court. It is only waste of the court’s time at the cost of other important appeals concerning other cases pending before it, he added.
According to the lawyers dealing with the criminal cases, in most cases, where the appeal was allowed to be filed under the special leave, this was eventually the decision of the high courts and the Federal Shariat Court which was upheld.
Frequency of such appeals also affects the popular perception about the finality of the decisions of the high court. It would, therefore, be in the interest of things if the apex court decides in its wisdom to substantially curtail unnecessary barrage of appeals and revisions in order to put an end to the prolongation of litigation.
According to senior advocate Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry, another important aspect which requires consideration by the Supreme Court is the question of discouraging unnecessary and frivolous litigation, as there is no law in Pakistan to effectively control this tendency. Until the parliament considers this important aspect, the Supreme Court may lay down strict rules and procedures to punish those who waste the precious time of the judiciary and exploit judicial authority for their own selfish motives.
This should have been done much earlier particularly in the Hudood cases where anyone could file any complaint, against any person, under the Hudood Laws without being accountable to any forum. As a cumulative effect of these factors, every section of our society has been affected by some kind of frustration, selfishness and despondency.
Strangely, those who seem to be more selfish and despondent are those who are more influential in the society. Selfishness and despondency has grossly contributed to intolerance. Apart from sectarian groups, the other intolerant groups include those who feel encouraged to be involved in the politics of regionalism and ethnic divide. Despite the fact that many political elements who would have been nonentities without regional and ethnic politics, are not content with what they have achieved in terms of political recognition and electoral positions. Instead of sincerely serving their genuine cause, they remain busy in promoting the ethnic divide, hatred and the resulting intolerance. In some cases, the sectarian intolerance has collaborated with regional and ethnic intolerance.
The feudal lords and the westernised elite have been either passive spectators of these developments during the past two decades or had been trying to use these tendencies to serve their respective political and class interests.
There is no hope that the westernised elite will come forward to fulfill its obligations by solving the problems created by the upholders of regional and ethnic politics. Likewise, the feudal class does not seem to be interested in curbing the rising tendency of intolerance promoted by these three groups, namely sectarian extremists, ethnic hardliners and the politicians advancing regional prejudices.
The only hope in this regard has been the judicial activism of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It has taken notice of such issues which have never attracted the interest or even the attention of the rulers. The Supreme Court can play an effective role in curbing the rising tendency of intolerance and the resultant divide and difficulties in the country. This can easily be done by addressing those genuine and legitimate issues and real difficulties faced by various sections of our society and which have been exploited by some elements for their ulterior motives.
Undoubtedly, there have been failings on the part of the successive governments in fulfilling the constitutional obligations of the state. The failure of the state in fulfilling these obligations always provides room for religious, political and social opportunists to exploit the situation for their own ulterior motives. If those, whose failure, incompetence or indifference gives rise to some real or perceived grievances are taken to the task and are forced to perform their duties, the opportunity to exploit and instigate innocent people will be minimized.
There is no doubt that constitutional obligations are not easy to fulfill with a single stroke of a pen and that too, during a short span of time. However, this should not be allowed to be taken as a justification or a pretext to ignore and shelve such obligations for an indefinite period of time. Through its various decisions, the Supreme Court has made it known to the public that it is not only the protector of the textual content of the constitution, but it is also the guardian and protector of the spirit and purpose of the constitution.
The purpose of the constitution cannot be protected unless it is ensured that all the obligations and commitment made in the constitution are effectively fulfilled within the timeframe laid down by the constitution or within a reasonable time as the court may, in its wisdom, determine. The culture of intolerance, hatred and frustration can only be eliminated with the realization of justice in its true sense. The easiest way to ensure quick justice to the people is through effective implementation of the constitution.
