Moderation is the centre point between the two extremes which denotes strength and balance. Hence the adage: Moderation is the best policy. Islam lays utmost emphasis on this aspect of the human life and a number of Quranic verses and Hadith enjoin the believers to be moderate in their behaviour because adoption of any of the extreme points or moving away from the centre point invariably has negative consequences and could even entail harm to the individual, a group and a society as a whole.
Unfortunately we have become a society which has an impulsive propensity to move to the extreme positions and consequently become victims of the self-inflicted wounds. Our history is replete with such disastrous indiscretions. The challenges and the dangers that the country faces today are a sequel to the collective denial of the golden principle of moderation and balance.
The situation that developed in the backdrop of an extremely unacceptable and unwarranted harangue by Senator Nehal Hashmi against the JIT and Judiciary and equally indiscreet remarks of the Judges terming the government a Sicilian Mafia and being behind Hashmi is quintessential of that typical behaviour and brinkmanship. What Hashmi did deserved appropriate action against him under the law of the land. The PML (N) did the right thing by revoking his party membership as well seeking his resignation as a senator for putting the party in an awkward position. If the court takes any action against him it would be justified in doing so and nobody in his right mind would begrudge that.
But what the judges said about the sitting government was unwarranted without any solid evidence and also constituted a breach of the code of conduct issued for the judges by the Supreme Judicial Council. They got carried away by the prevailing circumstance when they needed to keep their composure, avoid making controversial remarks and speak through their decisions, which regrettably was missing in this particular case.
Therefore the government genuinely felt incensed by those damaging remarks as was evident from the official statement on the issue. The constitutional experts and eminent lawyers also felt that it should have been avoided. They were also critical of the developments unearthed in regards to the formation of JIT wherein allegedly the registrar of the SC asked the SECP and State Bank to include certain names in the list of the persons to be recommended by them, which they believed was not in accordance with SC’s own decision in regards to its formation. It might create reasonable doubts about the whole process as well as vitiate the spirit of the legal maxim that justice should not only be done but it should be seen done.
Another fall out of these developments was that the opposition parties who were already after the blood of the government found yet another issue to grill it and politicise the whole affair. The Supreme Court might find it difficult to extricate itself from the emerging situation, unscathed.
What transpires in the coming days and how the events unfold in the backdrop of an apparently brewing storm cannot be predicted precisely but it can safely be concluded that the portents were not very encouraging unless sanity prevailed and all the stakeholders realised the imperative of moderation in their conduct and outlook.
Judiciary is the most sanctimonious institution of the state and deserves to be respected and held in the highest esteem. But that does not happen automatically. The judges who man the judiciary have to justify through their conduct and decisions that they are really worthy of the trust and respect of the masses and the society.
Unfortunately the judiciary in our country, like the politicians does not have an enviable history. It showed extreme passivism and pliant behaviour by legitimising the martial laws and even arrogating to itself the powers to amend the constitution making use of the doctrine of necessity. After the lawyer’s movement for the restoration of the judiciary and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reassuming his position of Chief Justice, the country witnessed the rise of judicial activism which represented the other extreme of passive behaviour that it showed during the martial laws. In certain decisions the judiciary went beyond its legal and constitutional powers, transgressing into the domain of the executive which the legal and constitutional experts have been pointing out from time to time.
Regrettably that mind-set continues to permeate and is bound to create rift-laden situations between the state institutions. Panama is a very high profile case with all the political overtones and connotations. Therefore the judges should have exercised utmost discretion in exhibiting their impartiality and independence. Under the prevailing circumstances, it would be advisable for the judiciary to hold a thorough probe into the JIT affair and address the apprehensions and fears of the defendants so that they do not allege bias on the part of the judiciary in case the findings go against them in the end. They deserve and have the right to be provided with a fair trial in conformity with the legal and constitutional norms.
I think the judges who made premature remarks against the government should also take them back by showing the grace that Justice Khosa exhibited over his remarks regarding article 62 and 63 during the hearing of the Panama case. He reportedly said “This case is the first of its kind. We know the gravity of a declaration by the court and its effect for both the parties. Someone was not honest. But we have to lay down parameters, otherwise except the Jamaat-i-Islami Chief Siraj Ul Haq no one will survive”. He withdrew his remarks later saying I regret my words as I should not have expressed such views regarding the parliamentarians.
It is also advisable for the government and its functionaries to cool down their frayed tempers, avoid unsavoury comments about state institutions and keep their faith and trust in the judiciary and let the law take its own course without any hindrance and hic-up. The country can move forward only when the state institutions function within their own constitutional powers and resist the temptation to interfere in the domain of other organs of the state.
