Let there be natural growth of institutions
The ongoing NRO decision implementation case proceedings have inspired hope of an amicable settlement. The apex court has already given exemption to the prime minister from attending the proceedings, thus allowing him to fully concentrate on matters of national importance. The PM can now meet foreign dignitaries at home and abroad without constraints imposed on his itinerary by court appearances. Further reducing the burden on the PM, the court has allowed him to hand over the responsibility of writing the Swiss letter to the law minister.
The tone and tenor of the PM indicate that he wants to comply with the court’s orders. The government has also reversed its stand on writing the Swiss letter. On Monday, the soft spoken and conciliatory Farooq H Naik presented before the court the draft of the required letter and the authorisation from the PM regarding the implementation of the NRO verdict. That the stalemate between the judiciary and the executive is gradually moving towards a resolution is in the interest of the system. The court has also agreed to the law minister’s plea that he needed a few more days to modify the draft of the letter and adjourned the hearing till October 5. A standoff between the judiciary and the executive is by no means uncommon in democracies. In countries where the institutions have matured, differences are resolved without giving birth to a crisis. In countries like Pakistan where institutions have been denied their natural growth, they sometime tend to take the collision course. Not long ago, the governments, both military and civilian, treated the Supreme Court as a handmaiden. More often than not, the apex court agreed to play the role. The SC invariably put a stamp of judicial authority on military coups. The ruling parties frequently packed the courts with their sympathizers. With the restoration of the independent judiciary, complaints of another type are emerging. It is maintained that the judiciary is extending its turf beyond its legitimate limits through suo motu actions. Further that instead of letting some of the amply clear constitutional provisions to speak for themselves the court insists on interpreting them. It is also maintained that the court picks up certain cases arbitrarily while ignoring others which are equally important.
There is a need on the part of the institutions to learn to live together with mutual respect and consideration. Instead of taking recourse to confrontation both the government and the apex court have to seek the middle way in the wider interests of the country. One hopes that the new draft to be presented in the next hearing would put an end to the confrontation.
