On staying in limits
The first thing that a military rule does is the stunting of the natural growth of the institutions of both civil society and state. This is what has happened in Pakistan under Ayub, Zia and Musharraf. With the 2008 elections, the institutions tasted freedom after nine years. With the shackles that had bound them now gone they have at times exercised the newly gained freedom and vigour in ways that have raised questions. This is as much true about the executive and judiciary as it is about the media, and the organisations of doctors, lawyers and other sections of society. There is a need on the part of the government and judiciary to seriously ponder over how to remain pro-active without transgressing into each other’s domain of authority. Once they have done this, others will fall into line.
The declaration opposes the exercise of direct or indirect control over critical inputs of the courts by other branches of government. As an independent judiciary constitutes a dependable bedrock that supports the edifice of democracy, the government needs to realise that trying to influence or subjugate it is tantamount to weakening the system. Democracy cannot survive long without the rule of law, nor the national economy prosper in the absence of independent courts which ensure a level playing field for everyone and provide a guarantee against unfair practices.
This said, the courts too should avoid doing anything that creates the perception that they are prejudiced against a government or a party. The choice of cases that involve important government functionaries while ignoring for years other cases of national importance has led many to question the criteria behind the choice. That Islamabad declaration underlines the need for judicial restraint is therefore heartening. What is needed is to ensure that judicial restraint is actually practiced. The common man expects superior judiciary to make the recourse to justice cheap and a timely decision of cases. With the dedication displayed by the superior judiciary, it can make history if it decides to concentrate on the two issues.
